2.(5-2^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT^F CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (S) N0."7 f <OF 2010 (S.B.) PETITIONERS ,^ .•).•-' ^tv.. ^^\^ .^ >--:'\^''''' ^^y v'/yV ......^y" ^"v^ ^- ^ RESPONDENTS "^-, l.1 Sada Singh S/o Shivram, aged about 50 years, Purap Operator, under Nagar Panchayat Dantewada, District South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.). / 2. Krishna Singh S/o Tulsiram, aged about 45 years, Peon, in the office of Nagar Panchayat Dantewada, District South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.). VERSUS 1. The State of Chhattisgarh: Through the Secretary/Director, Department of Planning and Urban Development D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). 2. The Collector, Dantewada, District South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.). 3. ^ Nagar Panchayat Dantewada (C.G.), through its Chief Municipal Officer. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ;^'\^> HIGH COURT OF CHHATI'ISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 785 of2010 PETmONERS : SadaSingh&another. VERSU8 RESPONDENTS : The State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETH10N UNDER .AATICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB:JIon9ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Prcsent: Shri M.K.Bhaduri, Advocate for the petitioners. Sliri A.V.Sliridhar, Panel Lav^yer forthe Stafe/respon|ients 1 & 2. QRALQRDER (Passed on 24th day of Febraary, 2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondent" authorities to consider the case of the petitioners fbr regularisation of their sendces as per circular dated 05.03.2008 (.^miexure P/l). 2. Slm Bhaduri, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were iiiitially appointed on daily wages basis on the post ofPump Operator and Peon in October, 1985. Pursuant to the circular dated 05.03.2008 (Annexure P/l) issued by the State Govemment, the applications ofthe petitioners for regularisation on tlieir respective posts were foiwarded by the respondent No. 3 to the higiier authorities vide letter dated 15.7.2004 (Annexiire P/2). Till date, no decision has been taken on the said applicatioiis. Shri Bhaduri further submits that some of the similarly situated persons have been regularised but the petitioners have been igtiored. Thus, this petition. 3, I have heard leamed couiisel appearmg for the petitioners, pemsed the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. Except the avennents m the pleadings with regard to the appointment of the petitioners, no documents have been filed in support of the aveniients. It is the case ofthe petitioners that they were appointed on daily wages basis and thereafter, some transfer fi'om one department to another department was made. The petitioners have not filed any document with regard to their appointment. Thus, for want ofrelevant documents, it is not possible to examine the averments made by the petitioners. Even otherwise, it is well settled law that aii employment i.e. daily wager, temporaiy, ad hoc etc. niade de hors the constitutional scheme of employment and statutoiy mles and regiilations is illegal, null and void. It is not the case ofthe petitioners fhat the petitioners were appointed on the basis of invitation to all the eligible candidates tto'ougli selection. Since the appointment of the petitioncrs as daily wager was not in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment, th^ petitioners have no right to contmuation//regularisation or remstatement in ser^ice. (See Secretary, State ofKamataka & Others v. Umadevi (3) c& Others1 and Official Liqiiidator v. Dayanand & Other/). In view of the foregomg, the writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself. Ainit Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge 1 (2006) 4 SC.C 1 2 (2008)10SCC1