IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHA’I'I‘ISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition {S} No. 145 of 2008 Dr. S. M. Fusey, s/o Shh” Marut Rao Sambhaji F‘uscy, aged about 61 years, Working as Dean, Chhattisgarh Institum of Medical Sciences, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), Resident of D~1, CIMS Staff Quartcrs, Guru Peu'h'oner Ghasidas University Campus, Kom', Bilaspur, Dismct Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). Versus Respondents State of Cbhatu'sgarh, Through the Principal Secretary, Depariment 0f Health 8r. Family Welfare, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Director, Medical Education, Olci Nurses Hostel, D.K.S.Bhawa11 Campus, Raipur Chhatu'sgarh. 3. The Government Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh thmugh its competent omcer, GCIMS, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. The Guru Ghasidas University, through its Registrar, Guru GhasidasUniversity, Koni, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5. Dr. S. K. Mohanty, Professor, Department of Surgery, Chhatn'sgarh Institute of Medical Sciences, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. r (SB: Hon’ble Shn' Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Sanjay K. Agarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the respondents No. 1 to3/ State. Shri Neeraj Choubey, Advocate for the respondent No.4. 0 R D E R (Passed on this 27th Day ofApril, 2009) By this petition, nled under Article 226 of the Consn‘tution o India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity o the impugned order dated 5. 1.2008 (Annexure P/6), passed by the respondent No.2, whereby the respondent No.5 was given the additional charge of the post of Dean in the Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences (CIMS). \ f f 2. The facts in nutshell, as projected by the peiitioner, are that the petitioner was working on the post of Dean in Govemment Medical College, Dhulea in the State of Mahamshu‘a, mm Where he was retired on 30.6.2004 (Annexum P/ 1). By order dated 12.1.2007 (Annexure P/ 2) the petitioner was appointed on the post of Dean in CIMS on contract basis for a period of six months or till the post is nlled up, on a consolidated payment of Rs. 45,000/- p.m. Thereafter, by order dated 11.7.2007 (Annexure P/4) the contract appointment of the petitioner was extended, purely on temporary basis, until further orders or for a period of six months, whichever was earlier. With eEect from 1. 12.2007 the CIMS was taken over by the State Government. By impugned order dated 5.1.2008 (Annexure P/6), passed by the respondent No.2, the respondent No.5 (Dr. S. K. Mohanty) was given the additional . Charge of the post of Dean in the (CIMS) and the petitioner was directed to perform his duties as Professor and Head of the Department of Medicine. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was never appointed as Professor or Head of the Department in any faculty, as such the order to the edect that the petitioner Will cont'nue as Professor and Head of the Department of Medicine, could not have been passed by the authorities. He further submits that the ‘Dean’ is a promotional post and without adording an opportunity of hearing the petitioner could not have been directed to work as Professor and head of the Department, reverting the pen‘tioner n‘om the post of Dean. Per contra, Ms Smita Ghai, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondents] State would submit that the appointment of the petitioner was purely on contract basis. By order dated 12.1.2007(Annexure P/ 2) the petitioner was appointed on the post of Dean in CIMS, wherein it was mentioned that the appointment of the petitioner was on contract basis for a period of six months or till the post was nlled up. Thereafter, by order dated 11.7.2007(Annexure P/4) the contract appointrnent of the petitioner was extended, wherein it was also mentioned that the appoinunent of the petitioner was purely on temporaxy basis, until further orders or for a period of six months, Whichever was earlier. Thus, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 5. 1.2008 (Annexure P] 6), whereby the charge of the post of Dean was given to the respondent No.5. Shri Neeraj Choubey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 would submit that the respondent Guru Ghasidas University is an autonomous body. Earlier the CIMS was managed and controlled by the university but later on w.e.f. 1.12.2007 the same has been taken over by the State Government. The petitioner was appointed by the respondent/university temporarily, purely on contract basis. As the CIMS has been taken over by the State Government, there appears to be noillegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 5. 1.2008 (Annexure P/6). Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the pleadings and docnments appended thereto, it is evident that the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Dean in CIMS was made temporarily, purely on contract basis for a period of six months. Thereafter, it was extended for a period of six months or until further orders. In the present case the respondent No.5, a regular Professor has been assigned the work of Dean, the appointment of the pen'tioner came to an end. Since the appointment of the petitioner was on contract basis for a fixed term, the petitioner has no right to continue in service. There is no illegality or irregularity as the petitioner has not acquired any right to the post. Thus, the petitioner was not entitled to continuation in his engagement. (See Secretary, state of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and othersl). The nature of appointment of the petitioner was not in accordance with Rules and as such the petitioner does not acquire any right to the post. ‘It is well settled principle of law by a catena of decisions that the employee appointed de- ,4, hors the consu‘tutional scheme of employment and not in accordance with law, has no right to continuation, reinstatement or regularization in service. This is also not a case where the peu'u'oner has established that he was legally appointed. It is clearly established that the appointment of the petitioner was not in acconiance with law. The reliance of the petitioner on a decision of this Court in Syed Iqbal Ahmed Rizvi Vs. state of C.G. as another? is misconceived, as in the case on hand it was specihcally mentioned in the subsequent order dated 11.7.2007 (Annexure P] 4) that the conttact appointment of the petitioner was extended purely on temporary basis, until further orders or for a period of six months, whichever was earlier. Applying the well settled principles of law, as stated above, to the facts of the present case, wherein the petitioner was appointed on contract basis for a particular period and his services came to an end in accordance with the contractual term, he has no right to the post. 10. With regald to the contention of the petitioner in respect of adording of an opportunity of hearing, since the petitioner had no right to the post and his appointment was not in accordance with the constitutional scheme of appointment, the petitioner was not entitled to an opportunity of hearing, as the contract itself came to an end as per the terms of the contract appointment. 11. The contention of the petitioner that the petitioner cannot be posted as Professor, worth no consideration, as the same is not challenged in this petition. The petitionerwas appointed on the post of Dean he was never appointed in CIMS as Professor. 12. Having regaxtl to the facts situation of the case, there is no merit in this petition. Thus, the petition is dismissed, accordingly. We‘i" a Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri‘ Judge 22009 (1) c.G.L.J. 248 )xyuan