IGH COURT OF CHHATTRSGARH: BILASP Writ Petition No. f296 uf 2063 Petitioneg Kantikar Korram, 8/0. Parasuram Korram (Gond), aged.about 32 years, occupaticn Part Time Swe’eper, posted at veterinary Hospital, Kondekurse, Dist. Kanker, Rio. Bodeii, Thana & Tah. Narharput, V .e Distt.Kanker (CG). 9 H UR Versus Resnondents 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Veterinaw Departmant, ‘ D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. Asst. Director. Veterinary Medical . Services, Kanker. Distt. Kanker (CG). 3. Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat Kenker, Distt. Kanker (CG). 4. Asst. Veterinary Medical Officer, In charge Veterinary Hospitai. Kondekurse, 4 Distt. Kanker (CG). Article 2261227 of the Constitution of indie) (Writ Petition under SB: Hon’bie Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. i5iE§éiiEW”S'EriméiiiiiiEéiEii;"é’éiiii'ééi‘féi'iiié’oéiiiiéiiér‘."’"“""'”"""”' “ Smt. Sunita Jain, Panei Lawyerforthe reepondents No. 1 and , 2IState. Shri $anjay K. Agrawai, counsei for the respondent No.3. ORAL ORDER ; ’ (Passed on this 6‘“ day of August, 2008 3‘ . , .33 g The petitioner was appointed on the post of $weeper on part time basis 3 temporariiy by order dated 4-11-99 (Annexure P11). Ail the Part Time Sweepers were treated as contract appointees by order dated 2—2-2002 (Annexure Pl2). Thereafter, the State Government took a decision to make payment on monthly basis to the Part Time Sweepers and further it was heid ‘g ‘ that the said employees may not be treated as daily wagers vide order dated 15-2-2002 (Annexure Pl3). The services of the petitioner were discontinued with 15 days notice on 19—2-2003 (Annexure PM). " 'L/ '2) On perusal of the papets, it appears that the appointment of the petitioner was not in accordance with constitutional scheme of emp‘oyment as there was no advertisement inviting apptications from at! the eligible candidates or through empioyment exchange. initiai appointment of the petitioner cannat be heid as reguiar or legal appointment as the same was ’de hers the constitutional scheme of employment. 3) it is well settled principles of law that temporary employee has no right to the post. Thus, reinstatementfcontinuation of the service cannot be granted. 4) The constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Secmtary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi & others { (2006) 4 SCCt} has laid down clear enunciation of law which was followed tater on in . various decisions by the Supreme Court. 5) ln the case of Secretary, Sate of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi & others (supra) the Supreme Court observed as under: “43. Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the ruie of law is the core of our Constitution, a court woutd certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a Viotation of Artiste 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need‘to compiy with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with the scheme for pubiic employment. this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same wouid not confer any right on the appointee. if it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it were an engagement . or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of i ; appointment. it has aiso to be ciarifled that merely because ajtemporary employee or a casuai wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by foiiowing a due process \ “ ' of seiection as envEsaged by the relevant ruies. It is not open to the court m prevent reguiar recruitment at the instance of temporafy empioyees whose period of emp!oyment has some te an end or The High under Anicie 226 of the Constitution, shouid not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itsetf was made reguiariy and in terms of the. constitutional “litigious empioyees who by appointment, do not acq'uire any right. Courw acting of‘ ad hoc the very nature of their Merely because an employee had continued under cover of an order of the court, which we have described as employmenf' in the earlier part of the judgment, he wouid not be emitted to any right to be absorbed or scheme. made permanent in the service. in fact, in such cases, the High Court may not be justified in issuing interim directions, since, after ail, if ultimately the employee approaching it is found entitied to relief, it may be possible for it to mould the relief in such a manner that ultimateiv no Dreiudice wilt be caused to him, whereas an interim direction to continue his employment would hold up the regular procedure for selection 0f impose on the State the burden of paying an employee who is really not required. The courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities or lend themselves'the instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates” 6) ln the light of the above. the petitioner cannot claim any regularization or reinstatement in service on the basis of his appointment, which was temporary and not in accordance with law. a 7) Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Judge ; 1 Satish K. Agnihotn /V‘ /‘ \