RESPONDENTS HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR WMT PETITION (S) No. 3675 of2007 Gregari Basant Kumar Khakha, S/o- Shri Gavrial, Aged about 39 yeai-s, Presently working as In-charge Sub Divisional OfEcer, Sub Division - Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh, CUhattisgarh. VERSUS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through - Secretary, Deptt. of Public Works, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Deputy Secretary, Department of Public Works, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 'ft'KTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTFroTION OF INDIA Sinele'Bench : Hon'ble Justice Shri Sattsh K. Agirihotri. Present: ShriPankaJShrivastava,Advocatetbrthepetitioner. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Govt. Advocate forthe State/respondents. ORDER (Passed on 29th day of June, 2007) - 1. Leamed couiisel appearing for th®petitioner submits that the petitioner was promoted vide order dated 11.08.2003 on ad-hoc basis from fhe post ofSub Engineer (Civil) to Assistant Engmeer (Civil). Subsequently, by the impugned order dated 25.04.2007 (Amiexure P/l), the promotion of the petitioner on ad-hoc basis was cancelled and the petitioner was reverted back to fhe orisinal post ofSub-Engineer (Civil). 2. The question of law as to whether an ad-hoc appointee has dght to the post and to continue, on the said post is no longer res-integra. The appourtment/promotion. on ad-hoc basis cannot be held as appointment/promotion in consonance with the constitutional scheme of employment. Thus, the petitioner has no rightto the promoted.post as laid dowa by fhe Supreme Court in catena of decisions to continue on the said post. ^-i''?*'-^^;^ ^S.&vS^.^S^^^s ^-^rfwEMntjyu^ & *»>.< 5^ F 3. Contention of the leamed counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was promoted alongwifh several ofher persons, fhereforeit was aregular promotion, is rejeeted as on the perasal ofthe order ofpromotion onad- hoc basis, it is apparent on the order itselfthat promotionoft&e petitioner was purely on ad-hoc basis. Therefore,the said promotion cannot be lield as regular promotion. Further, this fact is evident from fhe note ofthe promotioh order wherein it is clearly stated lliat the promotion ofthe petitioner on ad-hoc basis would be regylarised jin accordance with circular dated 01.01.2002. Thus, it is clearly established tfaat the promotion offtie petitioner was on ad-hoc basis not on regular basis. 4. It is well settled prmciple oflaw that any appointment / promotion dehors the constitutional scheme of the employment and not in consonance with tfae provisions of law on ad-hoc basis or temporary, is aot legal and the employee does not acquire any right to continue on the post and other benefits ofthe regular service. 5. Ia viewofthe settled position oflaw, ad-Kbc or coiitraet promotees haye no ri^itto the post offheu-promotion,whichwas not it} accordance with the constitutional scheme and not in accordance with any Rules, Regulations as framedundertheprovisoto Article309 ofthe Constitution oflndia. 6. In view ofthe foregoiag,fhe petitionis dismissed, sununarily. Sd/- SatishK-Agnihotri Judge Anrit fc.