c^l^^ (S) •^. "w IN THE HIGH COURTOF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR l&^^ W.P. (Sl N0. ^I^S' PETITIONERS ^^x. ^:^y ^\^\ ."^^••' '<<:':s" ~' '?<' .^ ^^" y .0''^> 1. Darbar Singh Porte, S/o Shri Bhudharu Singh Singh Porte, aged about 34 years, Occupation-Working as a Peon, R/o Kudhurtal, Post-chandli, P.S. Lalpur, Tahsil Lormi, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) / 2. Maheshwar Prasad Yadav, S/o Shri Ghasiram Yadav, aged about 40 years, Occupation- Working as a Peon, R/o Matiyari, Post Janji, Tahsil- Seepat, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through- Secretary General D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2. C.G. Administration Academy Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA RESPONDENTS VERSUS / 1. AP^ ^; HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITJONERS WRiT PETJTION (S) N0.425 OF 2009 Darbar Singh Porte & Another RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Another (Writ petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnlhotri, J. Present:- Shri Y.Kailash Rao, counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAU (Passedon this 14 day of December, 2009) 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petition is heard finally. 2. By this petition, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondent-authorities to considerthe case of the petitioners regarding regularization ofthe services ofthe petitioners within a period of 30 days. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were working in the respondent department on contract basis as daily wagers since 1997 without any break tilt 2002 and thereafter they were again re-appointed in the year 2005, but till date their services have not been regularizeci in spite of the fact that the names of petitioners were taken from the concerned emptoyment exchange. Even the State Government has also by its letter dated 5-3-2008 djrected all the departments to regularize the services of daily wagers, even then also no action has been taken by the respondent authorities to regularize the services of the petitioners. Thus, this petition. ^3P 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioners were not appointed in accordance wtth the constitutional scheme of employment. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. It is evident that the petftioners were not appointed in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment, as without any advertisement or examination or interview, the appointments were made. The appointment of the petitioners was purely on temporary basis on daily wages. 7. As faras the contention ofthe learned counsel appearing forthe petitioners that the names of the petitioners for appointment on daily wages were taken from the employment exchange is concemed, the same is noticed to be rejected, as while making appointments of the petitioners, the recruitment rules were not followed. Even there was no advertisement to invite the suitable candidates to participate in the selection process. How and in what manner the names of the petitioners were called from the employment exchange has also not been disclosed. (See State ofPunjaband Others v. Suijit Singh and Others). 8. Even if the names of the petitioners were called from the employment exchange, this does not suffice the requirement of provision of Constitutional scheme of employment, as there shouid be an open invitation to all the concerned. Reglstration of name in the employment exchange may be one of the etlgibitity 1 (2009)98cc 514 ^- :y crrteria. but drawing names from the employment exchange does not meet with the requirement of Constitutional scheme of employment. Admittedly the recruitment of the petitioners was not made in accordance with any rules. 9. Be that as it may, the daity wager cannot otafm regutarization, continuance or reinstatement in service on the basis of appointment, which was temporary and not in accordance with law and cfe hors the constitutional scheme of amploymerrt. (See Secretary, State of Kamataka and Others vs. Umadevi (3) and Others, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceutlcals Ltd. v. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Official Uquidator v. Dayanand and others^. 10. The contention of the petitioners that the State Govemment by its letter dated 5-3-2008 directed all the departments to regularize the services of daily wagers is concemed, the same is also noticed to be rejected, as in Umadevi (supra), the Supreme Court observed that "those decisions which run courrter to the principle seMed in this decision, or in which directions running counter to what we have held herein, will stand denuded of their status as precedents." Thus, reliance of the petitioners on the letter dated 5-3-2008 issued by the State Govemment is of no assistance. 2 (2006)48cci 3 2007(1)8cc 408 4 C2D08) 10 SCC I "^' •^IH^ 11. The above ratio laid down by the Supreme Court has been reiterated by this Court in Ashwani Kumar Verma & Offfers v. State ofChhattigarh & Anothef5. 12. This Court in Sanjay Patil v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anotheif, while dealing with similar issue observed that "if the State Govemment has regularized some of the daily wagers, not appointed in accordance w'lth the constitutional scheme of empfoyment, this Court cannot issue a positive direction to legalise the illegal appointment on the ground that cwtain illegaf appointments have been legalized/regularized by the employer. 13. In view of foregoing and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. _- Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^^ sWP (S) No.1743 of 20GS decided on 28-4-2009 6 WP (S) No.5845 of 2009 decided on 9-10-2009