.1 c§ 1% §§$Ja3m mw IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAT’I‘ISGARH AT BILAg WRIT PETITION (S) No. ‘314‘2? /201O .r’ C. P, Shrivastava S/o. Shri C. K. ShrivastaVa-‘Aged about 45 years R/o. 33, Vrindavan Colony Raigarh Distt.: Raigarh (CG). Petition er VERSUS I RESPONDENTS 1) State of Chhattisgarh T Through: The Secretary Department of Urban Administration and Development Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (CG). / 2) State Urban Development Authority {SUDA), Through: The Chief EXecutive Officer Chhattisgarh Ralpur 3rd Floor RD A Bulldlng Bajrang Complex Ralpur (CG /, 3) Shri Sanjay Shukla, The Chief Executive Officer, Chhattisgarh Raipur 3rd Floor " RDA Buildmg Bajrang Complex Raipur(CG) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 26 OF THE ) 2 HIGH COURT OF CHHATI‘ISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION gSg N0. 3437 of2010 PETITIONER : C.P.Shrivastava VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Staie of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUI’ION OF _ INDIA SB: Hon’ble S‘hri Satish K. AgnihotljLJ. , Present: I Shn‘ N.N.Roy_. Advocate for the petitioner. _ Shri P.K.Bhadun', Panel Lawyer for the Stata. ‘ ORDER ORAL _ (Passed 0n 05 dayof January, 2011) ‘ 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to renew/continue his service for the year 201041 in the light of the recommendation of the Additional Collector/Project Officer, District Urban Development Authority, Raigarh (for short ‘the DUDA’). 2. The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner is that initially the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Project Ofticer in the DUDA, Raigarh on 27.05.1994. 'I‘hereatter, vide order dated 27.7.2009 (Annexure P/2), the petitioner was sent back to his original post i.e. Commumty Organizer to work at DUDA at Raigarh. The petitioner continued to work on the post of Community Organizer on contractual basis and his appointment was renewed time to time. Vide letter dated 10.05.2010, the name ofthe petitioner was recommended to the State Urban Development Authority, alongwith four other persons but except the petitioner, the services of all other four persons have been ‘ continued by order dated 25.06.2010 (Amiexure P/lO) . A“: R v . Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is a case of discrimination. He next contends that he has not been considered on account oftiling of a petition before this Court seeking absorption in the Govemment. 4. The averment of the petitioner to the effect that he has not been continued on the post which he was holding on contract basis on ofthe writ petition, is not supported by any document or any communication. The averment is a self-same averment and appeaxs to be based on presumption. 5. It is well settled law that no court can direct an‘employer to accept the recommendation made by an officer, particularly, when admittedly the peiitioner was appointed on contract basis. 6. P.Ramnatha Aiyar’s Advanced Law Lexicon 3’“ Edition detines the word ‘recommendation’ as advise, counsel or opinion. 7. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in Naraindas Indurkhya v. The State ofMadhya Pradesh & Others], while considering the distinction between prescription and recommendation in case of text ‘ book observed as under: account offiling 1 (1974) 4 scc 788 t)» “15... It may be noted that there is a basic distinction between reconnnendation and ‘L prescription of a text book. When a text book is prescribed by an appropriate authority having legal power to do so, it has to be followed by the schools. Prescription of a text book carries with it a binding obligation to follow the text book. There is no such obligation when a text book is merely recommended. Reconmiendation has merely a petsuasive effect, it being open to the schools to accept the recommendation of to reject it as they think fit.” i 3 8. In New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Nusli Nevilie Wadia & Anotherz, with regard to guidelines the Supreme Court observed as under: @ “23. Issuance of such guidelines,'however, is not being controlled by statutory provisions. The effect thereof is advisory in character and thereby no legal right is conferred upon the tenant. . .." 9. Thus, the petitioner has not acquired any rigit on the basis of the recommendation made by the authority for continuation in the service- t 10.Even_otherwise, appointment on contract basis does not confer any right on the petitioner for continuation, absorption or regularization. . The Supreme Court, in Secretary, State ofKamataka v. Uma Devi (3) . ‘ & Otherf, has observed that. any appointment dehors the constitutional scheme of employment is illegal and not entitled to ' r’einstaiement or regularisation in the service. llJn View ofthe foregoing, there is no merit in this case and the petition is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. v Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri; Judge ’!“ (2008) 3 SCC 279 3 (2006) 4 SCC l 4r