C^ ^^7 '> 'l IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S.l. N0. r{V- /2011 PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS: •^- ^•sS^.,1^ ^/- A'^."'^^^; ^-•-•^y y^ A-v ^0'"''*^.^ '^ •?*^<^%>';s" ..'.>>°' Ram Singh, son of Shri Mohar Lal, aged about 25 years, R/o. Village Pendari, Post Odgi, Tahsil Odgi, District Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS ^ 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur [C.G.] 2. Collector, District Surguja [C.G.] 3. '" Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Surguja (C.G.), 4.^ Chief Executive OfGcer, Janpad Panchayat Odgi, District Surguja (C.G.), WKIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER As mentioned in the cause title above. 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS As mentioned in the cause title above -S. PARTICULARS OF THE ORDER AGAINST WHICH P:&TITION IS MADE. ,t,~.:.,»-. ,'tvr~ ^ /;^'.:/--&>. ^^>-tv--^ i! il 'S, ^~' J J ^.^-^' .'< ,3S-&<^ mOH COURTOE CHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR PETmONER WRIT PETmON (S) No. 722 of201 1 RamSin^i. RE8PONDENTS VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WMT PETrUON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTTrunON OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri. J. Present: Shri J.P.Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyerfw flie State/respandent No. 1&2. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 07al day ofFebmary, 2011) 1. By fhis petition, the petitioner sedes a direction to the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Employment Assistant, with back-wages. 2. Leamed counsel appeam^ for the petitioner submits that nutidly, fhe petitioner was appointed on the post ofEmployment Assistant by order dated 24.04.2007. The petitionerjomed his service in fhe offiee of Chief Exeeutive QfBcer, Jaapad Paachayat Odgi on 01.05.2007. TheTeafter, by order dated 18.03.2008 (Aanexure P/3), the term of eontract appointment was fiirfcer extended for a period ofone year, till 31.12.2008. Subsequenfly, his ^rvices has been tenninated vide order dated 28.6.2010 (Am»xure P/4). Being agyieved, the petitioner made a representation to the respondait authorities but nothing has happened tfll date. Shri Shukla furfher submits that fhe action offhe respondent authorities by temBnatiag the serviee ofthe petitioner is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner was not afforded any opportunity ofhearing before passing offlie termination order. 3. According to leamed counsel appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 and 2, the temi ofcontract appointatent ofthe petitioner has eome to an end oa 31.12.2008. Thereafter, the sCTvices of the petitioner was never extended. sii..'1'LilSlu.. Jl 'stii, 'K^ w. 'i"F^.. '^'-. •ui 7. 8. ^y Qn perusal ofthe order dated 24.04.2007 (Amiexure B/ll it jes evident that the appoiiitment of the petftioner v/as purely on contract basis for a period of one year. The prftioner, joined his duty on 01.05.2007 and Ifaereafter, his services were extended by arder dated 18.03.2008, till 31.12.2008 and has contiaued in service for more than three years, till passing of the impugned temnnation order i.e. 28.06.2010. No record has been produeed to indicate that the term ofhis appomtmait was ever extended after 31.12.2008. As per clause 7 of the appointment orda- dated 24.04.2007 (Annexure P/l), it is evident that the confideirtial repart would be mamtained and accordingto performanee ofthecandidata, he shall be considered fw appointment on contract basis fw tiie next year. In the impugned temunation order dated 28.6.2010 (Amexure P/4), it is apparent that Ifae petitioner's serviee has been tenninated on account ofhis absence and negUgence towards his duties. It is a trite law fhat a contract appointee caimot claim regularization, continuance or reinstatement in servisx on the basis of appointaient, which was temporary for a fixed period and ako not in accordance with law and the same was de hors Ae constitutional scheme of employment. (See Secretary, State of Kamataka andOthers vs. Umadevi (3) andOther^, IndianDrugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, Indlan Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd , Qfficial Liquidator v. Dayanand and others and State qf Punjab anrf Others v. Surjit Singh anct Others4}. Applying the well settled principles oflaw to the facts ofthe case on hand, the petition deserves to be and is acconlingly dismiased. No order asto costs. ^=r Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge !(2006)+SCC1 2 (2007) 1 SCC 408 3-(2008) 10 SCC1 4 (2009) 9SCC 514