i; :W' il.i ,i.; \ >.z 200. Petitioner Satyadev Yadav, aged about 39 years, S/o. Late Shri Fajihat Yadav, Managar, Primary Laghu Vanopaj Sahakari Samiti Mydt., Maharajganj, Rf'o. Vi!l. Mahkepi ihav/anipur, P.0. Baskepj, P.S. Bairampur, Distt. Surguja (CG). ResRondents 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Forest Department. D.K.S. ihawan, Raipur (CG). 2. Consereator of Forest, East Surguja, Pratappur Road, Amblkapur, Distt. Surguja (CG). 3. District Forest Officer & Managing Director, Zilla Laghu Vanopaj Sahakari Sangh Mydt., East Sarguja Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (CG). 4. President, Prathmik Laghu Vanopaj Sahakari Samiti Mydt., Mzaharajganj, P.0. Maharajganj, P.S. Bairampur, Teh.- Pal, Distt. Surguj"a(CG). under Articie 226/227 of the Constitution of India) SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Shri Ayaz Naved, counsel forthe Smt. Sunita Jain, Panel e State. on this 28th day of August, 2008 the peiitioner impuflns fhe order dated 16-1-2004 By this (Annexure P/4) passed by the respondent No.4, whereby the ssn/ices of the petitioner were terminated. 2) The petitioner was appointed on temporari? basisagainst vacanl post iishmentof the respondent No.4 byorder of part-timeiVtanager intheestabi dated 21-2-1999 (AnnexureP/1). dedsipn to makeioavment on month further it was held that the said took a iime emplov^s and: basistoth& ie>v®es mav not be treatsdlag daiiv '7i- wagers. The sewices of the petiiioner were terminated by order dated 16-1- 2004. (Annexure P/4). 3) Learned counssi apDearing for the Dstitioner submits that ths petitioner was removed from seroice bv order dated 16-1-2004 (Annexure P/4) Vi'ithout issuing show cause notics and affordins an ODDOrtunitv of hesrlng. The RStitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to reinstate him in sen/ice with all back wages and other benefrts. 4) On perusai of the papers, it appears that the appointment of the petitloner was not in accordance with constitutional scheme of empioyment as there was no advertisement inviting aooiications from ail the eiiglble candidates or through smpioyment exchange. tnitiai appointrnent of the petitioner cannot be heid as regular or legai appointment as the same '<vas de hors the constltutionat scheme of employment. 5) it ts well settied principles of iaw that temporary empioyee has no right to the post. Thus. reinsiatement/continuation of the sewice cannot be granted. 6) The constitutionai Bench of the Hon'bie Supreme Court in the case {(2006) 4 SCC1} has iaid down clear enunciation of iaw v/hich was referred and foiiowed with approval iater on in various decislons of Hon'ble the Suoreme Court. 7) In the case of Secretary, Sate of Karnataka and others Vs. tevi & others (suprs) Their Lordships obsewed as under: "43. Thus, it is clear that adherence to the ruie of equaiity in public emptoyment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the ruie of lav«'is the core of our Constitution, a courf would certainiv be disabled from passing an order upholding a vioiation of Articie 14 or in ordering the overiooking of the nsed to comply with the requirements of Articls "14 read with Articie 16 of ihe Constitution. Therefore, ^ -3 consistent with the scheme for pubiic emptoyment, this Court whiie iaying down the law, has necessariiy to hold that uniess the appointment is sn terms of the retevant rujes and after a proper competltion among quaiiffed persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointes. if it is a contractuai appointment, the appointmenf comes to an end at the end of ths contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daiiy wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end vvhen it is discdntinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of h's intment. It has aiso to be ciarified that a temporary empioyee or a casua! wage worker is continued Tor a time bey&nd the term of his appointment, he wouid not be entitled to be absorbed in regular sen/ice or made permanent, merely on ths strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by foliowing a due process of seiection as envisaged by the relevant ru!es. it is not open to the court to prevent regular recruitment at the Instance of temporary employees whose period of empioyment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very ,nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right. The High Courts acting under Artide 226 of the Constitution, shculd not ordinarity .issue directions for absorption, reguiarization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itseif was made reguiariy and in terms of the constitutiona! scheme. iVlerely because an employee had continusd under cover of an order of the court, which we have described as "iitigious empioymsnt" in the eariisr part of fhe judgment, he wouid not be entitied to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service. !n fact, in such cases, the High Court may not be justified in issuing interim directions, since, after aii, if uitimateiy the empioyee approaching it is found entitied to rslief, it may be possibie for it to mouid the reiief in such a msnner that uitimately no prejudice will be caused to him, whereas an interim dirsctlon^ to continue his empioyment . wouid hoid up the rsguiar procedure for selection or impose on the State the burden of paylng an empioyee who is reaiiy not required. The courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not Interfere undu!y with the economlc arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentaiities or lend themselves the instruments to facilitate the Mill w -^ '2a^3 8) Appiying weil settied principles of law to the facts of the case on hand, wherein the appointment of the petitioner against temporary vacancy of part-time Manager-was not in consonance with the provislons of iavv, thus, the appointment of the petitioner cannot be held as tega! and on that basis the cetitioner cannot ctaim reinstatement or contlnuance in sen/ice, 9) In viewof'foregoing, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to Sd/- satish K. Agnihotri Judge