^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cpram: Appellant Petitioner Hon' ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra, & Hon' ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ Writ Appeal No. 02 of 200S Choudhary Amit Singh, aged about 27 years, s/o. Shri M.L. Choudhary, r/o. Village Nawaki, Tahsil Rajpur, Dist. Sarguja (CG)/ Resppndents Vs. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Sectetary, Department of Panchayat and \ Rural Development D.K.S. Bhawa'h, Raipur (CG). The Commissioner, Chhattisgarh Employment Guarantee Council, Vikas Aayukt Karyalaya, Vikas Bhawan, Civil Line, Raipur (CG). Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Rural Development, New Delhi. District Programme Coordinator (Collector) under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (CG). Zila Panchayat, Sarguja, through the Chief Executive Officer, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (CG). \ (Writ Appeal under Section 2 (1) of the High Court of Chhattisgarh (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2005) Preserit: Shri M.D. Sharma, counsel for the appellant. ShriVinayl-larit.DepufyAdvocateGeneralwith Shri S.K. Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State. Mrs. Fouzia Mirza, Asst. Solicitor General for the respondent No.S/Union of India. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, counsel for the respondent No.5. Oral Order (Passed on this 19th day of Febmary, 2010) Per Dhirendra Mishra, J. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 14-12-2007 (Annexure A/1) passed in Writ Petition (S) No. 7496 of 2007, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed summarily. 2) The grievance of the petitioner before the writ court was that he was appointed on the post of Technical Assistent under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme for a fixed period of 12 months on the contract basis. After expiry the aforesaid contract period, fresh advertisement was issued for appointment on the post of Technical Assistant on 5-11-2007 (Annexure P/2) and the last date for submission of the application was fixed as 26-11-2007. The applicant sent his application for the aforesaid post to the respondent No.5 by speed post. However, the same was received by the respondent No.5 on 27-11-2007 i.e., one day after the cut off date, and therefore, the petitioner's candidature was not considered for appointment. 3 The petitioner filed the aforesaid petition and prayed for quashing of the advertisement on the ground that Clause (2) of the advertisement for receiving the application forms till 26-11-2007 was illegal, arbitrary, irrational.and same deserves to be quashed. He also prayed for quashing of the aforesaid notification on the ground that before issuing the advertisement the petitioner's case for extension of contract appointment was not considered. However, the writ petition itself was dismissed summarily with an observation that the cut off date once fixed for » riSn-S..,. .f f,.^' submitting the application, cannot be reopened to accommodate one candidate i.e., the petitioner. 1 4) Shri M.D. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that apart from challenging Clause (2) of the agreement the petitioner had also prayed for quashing of the advertisement itself on that ground as mentioned above, but the learned singl&Judge did not consider the aforesaid ground and dismissed the petition summarily only on the ground that the last date for submitting the application cannot be extended. 5) On the other hand, Shri Sumesh Bajaj, learned counsel appearing forthe respondent No.5 submits that the appellant was earlier appointed on the contract basis for a fixed period of 12 months. The order of appointment clearly mentioned the aforesaid facts and thus, the petitioner had no right of consideration for extending his contractual appointment beyond the period of 12 months. He further submjtsthat since the petitioner's application was received on 27-11-2007 i.e., one day after the cut off date i.e. 26-11-2007 fixed for receipt of the application, his application could not be considered as rightly held by learned single Judge. 6) Similar arguments were also advanced by Shri Vinay Harit, learned Deputy Advocate General with Shri S.K. Mishra, learned Panel Lawyer for the State and Mrs. Fouzia Mirza, Asst. Solicitor General for the respondent No.S/Union of India. 7) We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8) It is not in dispute that the appellant wasappointed on the contract basis for a fixed period of 12 months. The contention of the appellant is that the respondent No.5 ought to have considered to extend the contractual appointment of the petitioner before issuing the advertisement (Annexure P/2). Considering the fact situation of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the contention of the petitioner has no basis as the petitioner, who was earlier appointed on contract basis for a fixed period of 12 months, does not have any legal right to claim for consideration of extension of his teriUre and thus, he has no right to challenge the subsequent recruitment process which was initiated by the respondents for fresh appointment. 9) The other ground raised by the appellant is that his application for appointment should have been considered by the respondents as he had dispatehed the same before the cut off date i.e., 23-11-2007 and if it reached after the cut off date due to postal delay, the appellant cannot be held responsible for the same. The above argument has also no basis. As per terms of the advertisement, the application received by the cut off date i.e., 26-11-2007 could only be considered. 10) For the foregoing, this appeal being devoid of merit is liabte to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Judge Sd./- •N. Chan< ie Raju \-7