R'srrss S srtf.S^U- 6;:%^i.C 'ffl^^'y ly (\^ \0^ )^ BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH ) W.P.(S)No. 3>6^ of 2009 F'gTITIONER flgSPONDENTS "s.sfv.-^-y t;T '" Trinath Patel, S/o Shri B.L. Patel, aged about 27 years, R/o Village- Banipali, Post-Bhukel, Via- Basna, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) VERSUS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh , 2. Joint Director national Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme Development Commissioner Office, Raipur(C.G.) r'i '^aai-sss! 3. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Bilaigarh, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 4. The Collector and District Programmae Co-ordinator national Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme Raipur (C.G.) Janpad Panchayat Bilaigarh, IA^TJ •fa.- '^ Distt. Raipur (C.G.) /"5. Ku. Bharti Yadav, Assistant Advertisement and information, Distt. Panchayat Raipur (C.G.) ^-6. Ku. Bhawati Sahu, Programme Officer Janpad Panchayat, Tilda,. Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 7. Shri Amit KumarJha Programme Officer Distt. Panchayat Raipur (C.G.) 8. Ku. Ranjeeta Banjare, Programme Officer Janpad Panchayat, Bhatapara, Distt. Raipur(C.G.) \^ 4^ 9. Sapna Rani Agrawal Programme Officer Janpad Panchayat, Abhanpur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 10. Shri Vinod Bhaskar, Programme Officer Janpad Panchayat, Mainpur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) '3 /11. Monika Yadav, Programme Officer Janpad Panchayat, Palari, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) /12. Shri Mukesh Kumar Karet Programme Officer Janpad Panchayat, Chura, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 13. Shri Yuvraj Kumar Dewangan Programme Officer Janpad Panchayat, Simga, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 14. Shri Gavendra KumarSahu Programme Officer Distt. Panchayat Raipur (C.G.) 15. Deepkala Shringar Programme Officer Janpad Panchayat, Dharsiva, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) .'16. Neetu Sharma Programme Officer Janpad Panchayat, Aarang, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) <v ^A- 17. Smt. Roshni Tiwari Assistant Project Officer Distt. Panchayat Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. " Petition (S) No. 3626 of Trinath Patel VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh-and others. <^) Shri T.K. Tiwari counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur Dy.AG with Shri Arvind Dubey PL for the respondents/State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTSON OF INDIA Challenge in this petltion Is to theorder dated 25.6.2009 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No.3 by which a decision has been taken by the authorities not to extend the services of the petitioner which were already extended tili 28.2.2010. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner along with respondents No.5 to 17 was appointed by respondent No.4 on 20.3.2008 on contract basis but his services have been put to an end whereas the other private respondents have been retained by extending their serv'ices. He further submits that by order dated 18.5.2009 (Annexure P-2), the ipetitioner was served with a show cause notice in respect of his poor performance and the reply thereto was also filed by.him on 23.5.2009 (Annexure P-3). He submits that a ietter dated 28.5.2009 (Annexure P-4) was issued by the Coliector to the Commissioner mentioning therein about the work and conduct of the petitioner and therefore coliector i^commended for putting theservices of the petitioner to an end. Accordjng to the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner's services have been puf to an end on the basis ofrecommendations of the Coltector which ought not to have been done.' Counse! for the respondents/State submits that apppintment of the peiitioner was a contractual appointment for a period of one year. He submits that the services of the petitioner have been put to an end as his appointment itself was not in accordance with the releyant rules. He submits that the petitioner has no substantive right over the post and l^"' --<;nniTniw nnt^ii M C>0 3.- therefore he can not claim any parity with others. It has been pointed out by the State counsel that the order impugned is not a stigmatte one and therefore services of the petitioner vi/hich were temporary in character have been put to an end. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. From perusai of the record it is quite clear that the appojntment of the petitioner was purely of temporary character not in accordance with reievant rules and further that the order impugned is not a stlgmatic one as has been argued by the counsel for the petitioner. Thus this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, the petition has no force and therefore it is hereby dismissed. . ,--"-' ^ ^s" rr^r aa«¥saw iei^ iii(ti)(es!!