HIGH COURT OFCHHATTLSGARH AT BXLASPUR M VVrit i’emion N0. 1%352 0i‘2904 .PETITKGNER Ajmer Singh Dilruv; aged abuut 4G years, S/o Shri .Agnu Ram Dhruv, Occupation Guméi, msidgm of Village Chikhh, Tehisl Gariyaband, District Raipur (CG). VERSUS RESPéNDENTS L The State of Chhattisgarh, through The Secretary, Department of Panchayat, Mantralaya, DKS Buiiéing, Raipur (CG) pg Ziia Pariyqina, Samanvyaig Zila Shiksha Prathmik Karyakram, Raipur, Tehsi} and District Raipur (CG). 3. Th6 Coiiector, Raipur, Tehsil and Distlict Raipur (CG). 4. The Chief Executive Ofiicar, Janpad Panchayat, Gariyaband, District Raipur (CG . . Th6 Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Chikhii, District Raipur (CG). 6. Arjun Singii S/o Rati Ram Dhi'uv, aged 31 yearg, 'R/o Viiviage Kurmbhanth, Post Maigaon, Tehsii and RS. Gariabami. U’I (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF WDIA) {SE}: Honibie Mr. Satish K. Agm'hotrj: J.Q Present : Smt. Sudha Agtawal. Advocate for the petitioner. Sim MRS. Bhatia, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State/I-egpondent N0. 1 to 3. Shri Aiok Bakimhi, Advecate for the raspondent N0. 4. Sim AN. Bhakta, Advocate for the respondont No.6. QRAL (mom; (Passcé‘ on 4‘“ day of Septemizer, 299$) . The petitioner was appointed as Guruji against the vacant post of respondent No. 6. The respondent No. 6 was removed from the post of Guruji on 17.09.2002 on the basiS oficompia‘int with regard to .. 'zk embezziement ot‘the stipend money ot‘some students ofthe School. The petitioner was appointed against the vacancy whigh became avaiiahie on account of removal ofthe respondent, No. 6. ~. 3, The respondent N0. 6 macie an appeal against the removal order dated 11092002, hefore the Bistrict Coordinator, Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission. The respondent No. 6 succeeded in appeai as alleged compliant was riot found proved. Accordingly, by order dated 25.02.04, the respondent No. 4 & 5 were direeted to reinstate the respondent No.6. 4. Pursuant to resolution dated 30.07.02 (Annexure P/S), the petitioner was appointed against the vacant post. not in accordance with law and not after inviting applications from all the eligible candidates, and as such the appointment ofthe petitioner was not legal and he has no right to the post. Even otherwise, the vacancy arose on account ofrcmoval of the respondent No. 6, who ultimately succeeded in appeal and the l respondent authorities were directed to reinstate the respondent No. 6 in the post. Thus, the petitioner has no right to the post. 5. Be that as it may, once the appointment of an employee is found illegal {15- and unconstitutional, he cannot he permitted to continue or re- appointed on any ground. Admittedly, the appointment of the petitioner was not in accordance with the constitutional scheme ot‘employment as enshrined under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Thus, appointment of the petitioner itself is illegal. (See Secretam State of Kamataka and whens v. Uma Devi (3) and others]; _ a 6. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the pigtition is dismissed. No. / order asto costs. /, / Sd/— Saesh 1c AgnihO‘Ii Judge Sahu 'l (2006) 4 soc i W