^Lfi^'1!"' IN 1HE M.P.STATE ADHINISTRATTVE TB.) ORIGINAI. APPLICaTIOH H0«'^~?-^-?(^95. ^AL &T JABALPUR APPLICAST? RESPONDENTS: smt. Hemaragl R.Bbure W/o shri Raj Kamar Madhukarrao Bhure. aged about 28 years, Lectiirer, Governaent wanens' Polytechnic College.Bairan Bazar.Raipar (HP)» /Versus/ 1» State of Madhya Pradesh, fchroiigh - seeretary* Hlnistry of Han POwer i PlanniBg, Vallabh Shawan, BbopaKM.P.). 2. Madhya Pradesh Pu.blJ.c Service cca(imission, iBdorej.'^'r/^'^ ^- ^^e-f^'. 3. Th® ^rincipAl. Sovernineat woaeas Polytectinic BaJ.pur CM.P.) 4« Ku. Meena Kathal.aged about 27 years* C/o R.K. Gupta. lll/l,Vivekanand Ward» SatgBBc Sangan Colony,Jabalpar(HP) 5. Ka. Mamta Godani (Chadak), agedaboat 26 years, R/o Krishna Kunj'.Bairan Bazar* Raipur (M.P.). 6. Ku.Anju Ghourasiya.aged about 28 years» D/o sbri D.c.Ctioarasiya, 297, T.T.S. Compbund, Bai Ka Bagicha, Jabalpur(MP) 7. Ku. Artl La<3»age<a aboat 25 years* Govemnent somens Polyteohnic, GDDH, Branch, Bhopal(MP). 8, smt« sonal BhaCi(Du&ey). ageQ a&oat 28 years. C/o secretary.MP PHblic Servj.ee CoiaiHissi°n«In<3ore (MP). K AF^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition fS) No. 1212 of2005 Petitioncr Sint. Hemangi R. Bhure Versus Respondents State of Madhya Chfaatttegarh) & others Pradesh (now (SB: HonTale ShriSatish K. AgnihotriJ.) Ms Foiizja Mirza, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N. N. Roy, Paael Lawyer for the respondents/State. OftDBRtOralt (Passed on this 12«hday ofNovember, 2009) Heard. The petitioner, by fhis pctition, seeks a direction to the respondeuts/State to create additioiial post of Lectmcr, Costume Desiga aad Dicss Makiag ia Woiaen's Govt Polytecliiuc, Raipur and to coasider the case of the pctitioner for regularization. In altemative, the petitioner prays that the select list (Aniiexure A/12) aiay be quashed. Leamed counsel appeanng for fhe petitioner submits that fhe petitioner is a gcaduate in Advance Textile aad Dress Makiug. She was appoiated as part-tune Lecturer ia Govenunent Woinen's Polytechnic CoUege, Raiptir by order dated 28.9.1993 (Aunexure A/8). Pursuant to fhe advertiseinent issued 23.12.1994 the petitioner appUed for fhc post of Lecturer, Costuiae Design aad Dress Making ia Govenunent Woinen's Polytechnic, Raipur. The iatemew was held on 24.4.1995 but the petitioner was not caUed for fhe iaterview. On 4.5. 1995 a select Ust (Annexure A/12) was pubUshed in Ro^ar Aur Nirman. Thus, fhe pctittoner has filed this petition for her regularization on fhe post where she is worldag as part-titne — z - Lecturer or for quashing of the select list (Aiuijexure A/12), pubUshed on 4.5.1995. Having heard leamed counsel appearmg for the parties aad having perused fhe docuinents appended thereto, it is apparent fhat the engagement of the petitioner was as part-tune Lecturer, on the basis of per period wages, until .•<.' ~ •E' furfher orders. She was never appointed in accordance wifh the constitutional scheine of employinent. The nature of appoiatment ofthe petitioner appears to be purely as part tuae eiuplpyee, on teinporaiy basis. The same was not done iu accordaace wifh rules and as such fhe petitioner does not acquire any ngti.t to fhe post. It is well setded principle of law by a catena of decisions that fhe einployee appoiuted dc-hors the constitutioual scheine of eiuployinent and not in accordaace with law, has no r^ht to continuation, reiastatement or regularization in service. This is alao not fhje case of the petitioner- fhat she was legalfy appoiated, ia accordaace with law. It is clearly estabUshed fhat fhe appoiatment of fhe petitioner was not ia accordaace wifh law. (See Secretary, State of Karnataka and otliers V».Omadevl (3) and others1, OfHciaI Llquldator Vs. Dayanand and others2) The relief claimed by fhe petitioner to the exteat of grant of appointment by creatiag a supemuineraiy post, on the basis of her participation in fhe selection process for fhe post of Lecturer, Costuine Design. aad Dress Maku^ ia Woinen's Govt. ' 2006 (4) SCC 1 2 2008 (10) SCC 1 Tlialmr Polytecluuc, Raipur, has no basis. It is weU settlcd that mere participation in the selection process does not coitfer aay r^ht on the caadidate. Ou scrutiny the petitioner was not found siutable for caUiag for the interview and as such, the petitioner does not acquire aay right. Even otherwise, thc petitioner is not entitled to any relief after a period of about 14 years. At fhis st^e, no direction can be issued to create a supemuineraiy post. Tbia Court in Rajesh Kninar Dewangan Vs. The liife Insurance Corporatlon of India & others3 bield fhat "the petitioner does not acquire an indefeasible r^ht to be appoiated ou the post of Assistant pursuaat to hM selection" and that "no direction can be given to issue appointment letter to the petitioner fhough he has coine out successful ia fhe selection process." Applying fhe weB setfled prmciples of law, as stated above, to the facts of the piesent case, whereia the petitioner was eng^ed purely on teiuporaiy basis as part-time Lecturer, fhe petitioner has no r^ht to fhe post. Thus, no direction can be issued to the respoadents for regularization or reiastateinent ofthe petitioner ia service. In view ofthe foregoiag, there is no nierit ia this petition. The petition is dismissed, accordlagty. .Sd/- 2007 (3) M.P.H.T.22(CG)