HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETIT10N (S) NO.5079 OF 2003 PETITIQNER Sanjay Sahu, slo Shri Ram Vichare Sahu, aged about 27 years. Occupation Unemployed, Rlo Qtr. ND.9I9, Subhash Nagar, Charcha Colony. District Koriya (CG), Versus RESPQNDENTS 1. Staff Welfare Committee; thlough the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Code No.6792, Charcha Branch, District Koriya (CG). 2. The Branch Manager, State Bank of lndia, Code No.6792, Charcha Branch, District Koriya (CG). 3. The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of india, Divisionai Officer, Sen~2. Nehru Chowk, Biiaspur (CG). 4. State Bank of India, Through the Divisional Manager, S.B.l., Bairan Bazar, Raipur(CG). (Writ petitien under Article 22$ of the Constitution of india) Single Bench : Hon'bie Shri satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Ashok Kumar shukla, counsel for the petitioner. ORAL oRoER (Passed on this 12‘“ day cr September, zoos) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of inclia, the petitioner seeks direction to the respondents to reinstate his servioe and to reguiarize him on a suitable post. 'The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents to pay the wages for the period from May, 2007 to December, 2007. 2) The petitioner was orally appointed on 1-10-2001 on the post of Canteen Boy-Cum~Messenger. No order was passed and no selection has taken place. Thus, the appointment of the petitioner on daiiy wages was not in accordance with law and it was de hots the constitutionai scheme of employment. Thereafter, orally on 1-1 £008 the petitioner was asked to not to continue with work. 3) The Supreme Court in the matter of secretary, state of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others‘,.observed in para 47 as under : “47. When a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a 1 (2006) 4 SCC 1 conttactual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognised by the relevant rukes or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being iemporary, casua! or contractuai in nature. $uch a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being connrmed in the poet when an appointment to the post could be made oniy by foliowing a proper procedure for selection and in cases concerned. in consultation with the Public Service Commission. Therefore, the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary, contractuai or casual employees. it cannot also be held that the State has held out any promise while engaging these persons either to continue them where they are or to make them pennanent. The State cannot constitutionally make such a promise. it is also obvious that the theory cannot be invoked to seek a positive relief of being made permanent in the po ." The Supreme Court in the matter of R5. Garg vs. State of UP. and othersz observed in para 16 as under: “1 6. Even the $tate cannot make rules or issue any executive instruotions by way of regularization of service. lt would be in violation of the Rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and opposed to the constitutional scheme of equality ctauses contained in Article 14 and 16." Again the Supreme Court in the matter of Surinder Prasad Tiwari vs. U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpedan Mandi Parishad and othersa, observed in para 35 as under : “35. Equal opportunity is the basic feature of our Constitution. Public employment is repository of the State power. Certain status and powers emanate from public employment." in the matter of lndian Drugs & Pharmaceuticats Ltd. Vs. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd“, the Supreme Court observed as under : “34. Thus, it is well settled that there is no right vested in any daily~wager to seek regularisation. Regularisation can only be done in accordance with the rules and not dehors the rules. ln E. Ramakrishnen v. Slate of,Kerala this Court 2 (2006) o soc 430 3 ( 4 (2006) 7 SCC 684 2007) 1 SCC 408 (3 f held that there can be no regularisation dehors the rules. The same view was taken in Kishore (Dr) v. State of Maharashtra, Union of India v. Bishamber Dutt. The direction issued by the Services Tribunal for regularizing the services of persons who had not been appointed on regular basis in accordance with the rules was set aside although the petitioner had been working regularly for a long time. 35. ln sunnder Singh Jamwai (Dr.) v, State of J & K it was held that ad hoc appointment does not give any right for regularization as regularization is govemed by the statutory rules.“ 7) Furthen in the matter of State of U.P. and othera vs. Desh Raj5 the supreme Court observed as under : “7. Whatever may be the import and purport of such regularisation rules in view of the recent Constitution Bench decision of this Court in $ecy., State of Kamataka v. Umadevi (3), it is now well settled that the appointments, if made in violation the constitutional scheme of equality as enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of lndia. would be rendered illegal and, thus, void ab im‘tio No regularisation rules, therefore, could have been made by the State of Uttar Pradesh in derogation of the statutory or constitutional scheme.“ 8) Applying the well settled principles of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the facts of the present case, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself. 9) On request, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to make a representation before the concerned respondent authorities for salary for the period of his work, if so advised, and, in turn, the respondents are directed to consider and decide the same, in accordance with law, on its own merits, as expeditiously as possible, if a representation is made by the petitioner. ,Satish K. Agnihotrilk Sdl- Judge 5 (2007) 1 soc 257