^p/^ HjGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petitison (S) Nb. 1347 of 2C3^i Petitioner Somendr^ Pratap Singh, aged about - years, son of jShri Muriidhar Singh, Laboratory Technlciah, Govt. Giris' Coiiege, Ambikapur, District Sarguja.l - Versys "!:.{- ^ Respondents 1) The State of M.P. through theSecretary, Higher Eduoation, Vaiiabh Bhawan, Bhopal, f •. . • . ^ 2) The Comjmissioner, Higher Education, Satpura Bhawan, Bhopal.i i 3) Ttie Additionali Director| Higher Education, Biiaspur Divjsion, Bitaspuri 4) The Principai, Govt< Girls Coiiege, Ambikapur, Distt, Saiguja. ] (Writ Petition under Arttcie 226/227 oftlle Constitution.of India) SB: Hon'bteMr. Satish K.^nihotri,J. Preseiit Shri P. Diwakar, Sr Advocatewjth Shri PX. Bhaduri, courisel forthe petitioner. Shri Satjsh Gupta, Govt. Adwcate;fbr the respondents N6.3 and 4/State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 26th February, 2008) The petitioner was appointed as Laboratory Technioian on 10-1-1991 (Annexure A/1) on a fixed pay scate of Rs.1,200/- per month purety on temporary \basis for a period of 89 days, and thereafter, his appointment was continued tiil the services ofthe petitioner were -dis-engaged inthe iight ofthe po(icy decision ofthe State Government taken in November, 1999 as referred |in the return. In O.A.No.722 of 2000 (Somendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others) was fited by the petitjoner, the termination order dated 7-2-2000 (Annexure A/22) waa under chalienge. !t is difficuit to come to a conolosion asto what is the date of terminatjon/dis-engagement'ofthesen/icesofthepetitioner | ' ^ ^ fz^ 2) Be that as it may, the petitioner was initiaiiy apposnted as Laboratory Technloian for a period of 89 days and thereafter this period continued, by various orders passed time and again for 89 days titi the date of his dis-engagerment from sep^ices. The present petition has been filed seeking a writ/direction to regularize the sen/ices of the petitioner. 3) On the issue of termlnatlon, M.P. i Administratlve Tribunal, Jabalpur, in O.A.No.722/2000fi!ed bythe petitioner, passed the foiiowing order: 'ln view of the above position, It is directed t'nat the case of the applicant shali bej re-e^mined in the iight of the said clrcuiar dated 14-2-2000 amd subsequent oircuiar of the Government on the subject and thereafter a fresh order shal! be passed by the respondent No.3. Ti!l the case of the case of the appiioant is re-examinect as directed above, the operation of the Impugned order shali remain stayed. The appiicant shaii be at liberty to approach the Tribunal again in case he is again aggrieved by the order that may be issued after re-examintion of his case. This appiicatlon stands disposed off with the afQfesaiddirectlon". 4) The present petition fited on 4-4-1996 is not in continuation Gfthe subsequent order dated 22-3-2000 (Annexure R/2) passed by the Tribunai. Since the appointment of the petitioner is not in accordance vvlth the constitutional scheme of empSoyment and is not in accordance v/rth la\v, the petitioner has not acquired any rlght to re-appointment contlnuation or reinstatement in sen/ice. 5) The constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretery, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi & others ((2006) 4 SCC1) has iaid down ciear enunciation of iav^ which v^as foilowed later on in various decisions by the Supreme Court. 6) in the case of Secretary, Sate of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi & others (supra) the Supreme Court obssr^ed as unde: "Thus it is ciear that adherence to the rute pf ecjuaiity In public emptoyment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the ruie of iaw is the eore of our Consfitution, a court wouid certainly be disabted from passing an order uphoiding a vioiation of Articie 14 or in ordering the -3- &0 Raju overiooking of the needto complywith the requirements of Articie 14 read with Artioie 16 of the Constitution, Therefore, consistent withj the scheme for pubfic employment, this Court while Saying down the iav/, has necessariiy to hold that uniess the appointment isin terms of the retevant rules and aftera proper competition among .quaiified persons, the same wouid not confer any right on theappointee....." 7) in the iight of the above, the petttioner cannot olaim any reguiarization or reinstatementin sen/ice'on the basis of hisi appointment, which was temporary and not In accordance with lav< dehors constitutionai scheme of empioyment. 8) Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge -/r