^se' <-;,' {S y ^ HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAIVI: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLESHRI SUNILKUMARSINHA, J. Writ Appeal No. 23 of 2009 APPELLANTS PETITIONERS Versus RESPONDENTS 1 2 Kumar Das Jangde S/o - Nain das, aged about 43years, R/o- Gram Panchyat - Masna, Janpad Panchayat - Lormi, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) Rajendra Bodle S/o - Vishram Prasad, aged about 39 years, R/o- Gram Panchayat - Lalpur, Janpad Panchayat - Lormi, District Bilaspur (C.G.). State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) The Commissioner, Chhattisgarh Employment Guarantee Council, Vikas Ayukt Karyalaya, Vikas Bhawan, Civil Line, Raipur (C.G.) Union of India, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Rural development, New Delhi. Disfrict Programme Coordinator (Collector) under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Janpad Panchayat, Lormi, Through the Chief Executive Officer, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) Zita Panchayat Biiaspur, Through the Chief Executive Officer, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) •"'' WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 OF CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH) RULES, 2006. Present: Shri F.S. Khare, learned counsel for the appellants. ShriV.V.S. Murthy, learned Deputy Advocate General with Shri Akhil Agrawal, learned Panel Lawyer for theState/ respondents No. 1, 2 and 4. Shri R. Pradhan, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3. JUDGMENT (12th May, 2009) The following judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned coungel for the parties are heard on I.A. No.01/2009, an application for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeai. 3) I.A. No. 01/2009, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing thewrit appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Learned counsel for the parties are heard oh admission. 5) The appellants have filed this writ appeal against the impugned order dated 21.07.2008, passed in W.P.S. No.7726/2007. , 6) The appellants/ petitioners were seeking a direction to the respondents to allow them to continue on the post of 'Gram Rojgar Sahayak' for one more year. yyy^ ly' 7) The petitioners were appointed as 'Gram Rojgar Sahayak' on contractual basis for a period of one year. In the year 2008, the respondents initiated recruitment process for the post of 'Gram Rojgar Sahayak'. The petitioners participated in thesaid selection process. Inspite of grant of weightage of ten marks on account of their past experience on the sajd post, none of the appellants could be selected on a comparative merit of the candidates who partteipated in the selection proeess. The petitioners, thereafter, filed writ petitionseeking their continuance on the said post. 8) The leamed Single Judge considering that the petitioners were appointed on contractual basis for a limited period and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka & others v. Umadevi (3) and others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, held that the petitioners had no right to claim their continuance onthe said post andtherefore, dismissed the writ petition vide impugned order dated 21.07.2008. 9) Shri F.S. Khare, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the appellants' writ petition following the dictum ofthe Apex Court in the case of State of Kamataka & others v. Umadevi (supra) as the said case is not appljcable to the facts of the present case. 10) Admittedly, the appellants/petitioners were appointed on the post of 'Gram Rojgar Sahayak' for a limited period of oneyear on contract basis. The Apex Court in the case of State of ^ L.\ subbu Karnataka & others v. Umadevi (supra) has categorically held in para 47 that a person appointed on contractual basis for a limited period cannot claim his continuance on the said post after expiry of the contract period as a matter of right. Thus, the petitioners cannot claim their continuance on the post of 'Gram RojgarSahayak' as of right. 11) We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the impugned order whereby the appellants' writ petition was dismissed. 12) The writ appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summariiy. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- SOtffl.KUM SlNHA Judge