'>" ;;'^H ^ if HIGH COVRT OF GHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITIONNo,2057_ofl998 Smt. Pratima Dubev W/o Shri Kaushal Kishore Dubey aged about 36 years resident of near water tarik Kedaqiur, Ambikapur, District Sarguja, M.P. VERSUS : 1. The State of Madhya Pradesh Through the Secretary, Higher Education Departnient, Govt. ofM.P. Bhopal (M.P.) 2. The Con-urussioner uf M.P. Higher Education for non Govemment Colleges, Mahavir Naair, Bhopal(M.P.) 3. Holy Cross Women's Collese Ambikapur 497001 Surguja (M.P.) Thi-ou^i its Pi-incipal. 4. Pavitra Crux Sister's Assiciation of Holucross Sisters, Hazaribagh, BIHAR, throush its Managing Director. 5. Gum Ghasidas University, through its Registrar Bilaspur, M.P. WR]T_PETmON LINDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Sattsh K. Asmhotri. J. Present: Shri H.B.Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Shri C.K.Sahu, Advocate fortliepetitioner. • Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Govemment Advocate forfhe State/ respondent No. 1 aiid 2. Shri A.K.Prasad, Advocate for the respondent No. 3 and 4. QRALORD^. (Passed on 01st day of July, 2008) By tius petition, the petitioner impuais the order dated 22.6.1996 (Annexure P/6) whereby the services oftiie petitioner was discontinued. Shri Agrawal, leamed senior comisel submits fhatthe petitioner was appointed for aperiod of 10 months by order dated 01.07.1987. Thereafter, the petitioner continued till 21.6.1996 when the impugned order was passed. Leamed counsel further submits that the petitioner was appointed as a part-time lecturer in Hindi and on yeady basis. The petitioner remaiaed as a part-time lecturer thfoughout. Sbri Agrawal next submits that with an artificial break, the petitioner contiaued in seryue for about 10 years and fhereafter the impugned order was passed assigning no reason. .The respbndents, in tbeir refaim have given the reason at '-v.^ ,.-:-?- '•< si.' 3. 4. Annexure R-3/4 whereby a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 6.11.1995, alleging delinquency in her duty. No step was taken ffaereafter. No enquiry was held and ultimately, the fmal impugned order was passed. Thus, the orderis vitiated aad stigrnatic. Shri Prasad, leamed counse! appearing for fhe respondent No. 3 and 4, per contra, submits that the appointment ofthe petitioner was purely on temporary and part-time basis. The appointment of the petitioner was farfher not in accordanee withthe constitutional scheme ofemployment. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to be reappomted or any show cause notice before terrmnation of her services. Leamed counsel relies on a decision offlie Supreme Court m the matter of Secretary, State of Kamataka and others v. Uma Devi (3) and others . Shri Dwivedi, leamed counsel appearing forthe State/respondent No. 1 and 2 adopts the submissions made by Shri Prasad and farther submits that the appointment ofthe petitioner was unconstitutional. Having heard leamed counsel for the parties, pemsing pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is evident that the appointment ofthepetitioner was on part-time, temporary basis and not in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment. .There was no advertisement, no selection before appointment ofthe petitioner was made. Working for 10 years, does not confer aay right on the petitioner to be re-appointed. Thus, fhe impugned order is not stigmatic which requires compliances ofprinciples ofnaturaljustice. The Supreme.Court, in fhe matter ofSecretary, State ofKamataka and others v. UmaDevi (3) and others (Svpra), observed as under: "43. Thus, it is clear that adhereace to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our Coiistitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a court would certainly be disabled from passing the order uphoiding a violation pfArticle 14 or in ordermgtheoverlookmg ofthe need to comply with fhe requirements ofArticle 14 read with Article 16 ofthe Constitution. Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public employment, this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in terms ofthe relevant mles aiid after a proper conipetition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee. If it is a conti'actual appointment, the appointnient comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it were aa engagement or '•(2066)4SCC1 :fS''S""SSS^, ^"^•"^"!% -.y :^- ' "i • %. :i! ';lte>» 1 '1BESSI 1 "ss i s! s ^fc,rf<" J? \\ appointment on daily wages or easual basis, the same would come to aii end when it is discontmued. Sitnilarly, a teinporary employee could not claim to be permanent on the expiry ofhis temi of appomtnient. It hss aiso to be ciarified tliat merely because a temporary employee or a casual waee worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made pemianenf, merely on the strengSfa of such continuance, iffhe original appoiatment was not made by followmg a due process of selection as envisaged by fhe relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent resular recruitment at the instance oftemporary employees his period ofempioyment has come to an end or ofad hoc employees who by the very nature offheir appointment, do tiot acquire any riglit The HigSi Courts actiag under Aiticle 226 of the Constitution, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularisation, or permanent contiiiuance unless the recruitmeat itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. Merely because an employee had continued under cover of an order ofthe court, which we have described as "litigious employment" in the earlier part of die judgment he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or inade pennaaent in the service. In fact, in such cases, the High Court may not be justified in issuing interim directions, since, after all, if ultunately the employees approaching it is found entitled to relief, it may be possible for it to mould the relief m such a mamierthat uKimately no prejudice will be caused to hiin, whereas an interim directian to continue his employment would hold up the re^iilar procedure for selection or impose on the State the burden ofpaying an employee who is really not required. The coui'ts must be carefal m ecsunng that they do not iateifere unduly with the economic arransements ofits affaira by the State or its insferumentaSities or lend themselves the instrdments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory maiidates." Applying fhe well settled principles of law to the facts of the case, the iinpugned order cannot be held as stigmatic or illegal as the appointment ofthe petitioner itselfwas not in accordance withtiie constitutional scheme. In view ofthe forego.iu.s, the petition is accordiagly dismissed. No order asto costs. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge / f-': "^'