HIGHCOURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR DIVISIONBENCH HON'BLESHRI FtAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Writ Appeal No. 20 of2009 1 Baburam Sahu S/o - Hariram, aged about 32 years, R/o Gram Panchayat - Vijaypur, Janpad Panchayat - Takhatpur, District - Bilaspur(C.G.) 2 Krishan Kumar Rajak, S/o- Durga prasad, aged about 37 years, R/o Gram Panchayat - Binouri, Janpad Panchayat - Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) PETFTiONERS 3. Versus RESPONDENTS 1 4 Navnit Kumar Mishra S/o Kedarnath, aged about 22 years, R/o - Gram Panchayat Kanchanpur, Janpad Panchayat- Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) The Commissioner, Chhattisgarh Employment Guarantee Council, Vikas Ayukt Karyalaya, Vikas Bhawan, Ch/il Line, Raipur(C.G.) Union of India, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Rural development, New Delhi. District Programme Coordinator (Collector) under the Natiohal Rural Employment Guarantee Act, .2005 Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) Janpad Panchayat, Takhatpur, Through the Chief Executive OfRcer, Distrtet-Bilaspur (C.G.) 2- 6 Zita Panchayat Bilaspur, Through the Chief Executive Officer, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTIQN 2 OF CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCHIRULES. 2006 Present: Shri F.S. Khare, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri V.V.S. Murthy, learned Deputy Advocate General with Shri Akhil Agrawal, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondents No. 1, 2 and 4. Shri R. Pradhan, learned Standing Counset for respondent No.3. JUDGMENT (12thMay,208S) The following judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on I.A. No.01/2009, an application Tor condonation of the delay in filing theappeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the grounds taken in the appliGation, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3) I.A. No. 01/2009, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the writ appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Leamed counsel for the parties are heard on admission. 5) The appellants have filed this writ appeal against the impugned order dated 21.07.2008, passed in W.P.S. No.7721/2007. w 'M • €3 !:i ,|1 6) The appellants/ petitioners were seeking a direction to the respondents to allow them to continue on the post of 'Gram Roj'gar Sahayak' for one more year. 7) The petitioners were appointed as 'Gram Rojgar Sahayak' on contractual basis for a period of one year. In the year 2008, the respondents initiated recruitment process for the post of 'Gram Rojgar Sahayak'. The petitioners participated in the said selection process. Inspite of grant of weightage of ten marks on account of their past experience on the said post, none of the appellants could be selected on a comparative merit of the candidates who participated in the selection process. The petitioners, thereafter, filed writ petition seeking their continuance on the said post. 8) The learned Single Judge considering that the petitioners were appointed oncontractual basis for a limited period and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka & others v. Umadevi (3) and others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, heid that the petitioners had no right to claim their continuance on the said post and therefore, dismissed the writ petition vide impugned order dated 21.07.2008. 9) • Shri F.S. Khare, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the appellants' writ petition following the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka & others v. Umadevi (supra) as the said case is not appticable to the factsof the present case. ^ 10} .Admittedly, the appellants/petitioners were appointed on the post of 'Gram Rojgar Sahayak' for a limited period of one year on contract basis. The Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka & others v. Umadevi (supra) has categorically held in para 47 that a person appointed on contractual basis for a limited period cannot claim his continuance on the said post after expiry of the contract period as a matter of right. Thus, the petitioners cannot claim their continuance on the post of 'Gram Roj'gar Sahayak' as of right. 11) We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the impugned orderwhereby the appellants' writ petition was dismissed. 12) The writ appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is ;<g^..J:!^reby dismissed summarily. -y-.^';^ 'y -^.•\ Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- SUNILWM SW»A Judge sybbu