WRIT PETITION No. .3396 OF 1995 (UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, FOR ISSUANCE O WRITS IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION ETC., ORDER OR ORDERS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS) SMT. MADHULIKA SHARMA W/o Shri R.R.Sharma Purani Basti, Lilly Chowk RAIPUR (M.P. PETIONER IT 3. Particulars of the orders against which the petition is made EECg‘%Ic§Té lag“ This Writ petition has been preferred against the non issuance of orders of regularisation in favour of the contd..v2 F ) VERSUS l. State of M.P. Through : The Secretary to the Govt. of M.P., Local Self Govt. Department, Vallabh Bhawan BHOPAL (M.P.). 2. Director Nagar Prashashan Near Bus Stop No.6 T.T. Nagar BHOPAL (M.P.). 3. Deputy Director Nagar Prashashan Dixit Building Moudhapara RAIPUR (M.P.) 4. (}’—Municipal Council Bhatapara Through : The Chief Mun1c1pal Officer BHATAPARA Dist : Raipur (M.P.) .. RESPONDENTS Particulars of the Petitioner — As given in the cause title. 2. Particulars of the Respondents :— As given in'the cause title. H m COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Wn‘t Petition No. 3396 of 1995 {f9 Petitioner . Smt. Madhulika Sharma Versus Rcspondents State of M.P. (Now CG.) 85 others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 85 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon’ble Shx'i Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shn' Rahul Tamaskar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shn' P. K. Bhadun', Panel Lawyer for the respondents ,No. 1 to WState. Shri Shailendra Shukla, Advocate for the respondent No.4. o R D E R (Oral) (Passed on this ll‘h day of March, 2O 10) Heard. I 1. The petitioner, by this petition, seeks a direction to the respondentsfor her regularization on the post of Upper Division Teacher. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that for the first time the petitioner was appointed on the post of Upper Division Teacher for one academic session 1986-87 on honourarium basis. Thereafter the. petitioner continued to discharge her duties on daily wages &om December, 1987 to May, 1995 (Annexure P/2 and P/3). Thereafter, the petitioner applied for appointment for the academic session 199596 on 17.6. 1995 (Annexure P/ 4) but she was not given appointment. The grievance of the petitioner is that seven other persons have been selected and appointed, ignoring the claim of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents] authorities is arbitrary, irrational and contrary to law in not giving appointment to the petitioner, who has 8 years experience of teaching in the held. 4. It is evident that by order dated 9.12. 1987 (Annexure P/ 3) the petitioner was appointed purely on temporary basis for 89 days H ’L/ _ ‘ on daily wages. It is apparent that, themafter, the petitioner was Engaged on daily wages for ncxt terms i11 the subsequent academic sessions and as such she continued to work up to May, 1995, as is evident mm the certincate (Annexure W2). After a period of about more than 14 years it is not necessaxy to examine the legality and validity of the action of the respondents. Admittedly, the engagement of the petitioner was purely on temporary basis for 89 days. Thereafter, the petitioner might have been engaged for subsequent terms but she was never given appointment on regular basis. The petitioner was never appointed in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment. Thus, the petitioner has no legal right to reinstatement and regularization of her services. The nature of appoinunent of the petitioner was purely on temporary basis and the same was not done 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 oatena of decisions that the employee appointed de-hors the constitutional scheme of employment and not in accordance with law, has no right to continuation, reinstatement or regularization in service. This is also not the case of the petitioner that she was legally appointed, in accordance with law. (See Secretary, state of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and othersl, omcial Liquidator Vs. Dayanand and othersz l. Thus the petitioner is not entitled to any relief, as claimed in this petition. For the reasons afore—stated, I do not nnd any merit in this writ petition, which deserves to be and is dismissed accordingly. No order asto costs. J,’_’_’f Qd SATISH K: AziNIHOTRI Thakur Judge Wt WW 1 2006 (4) soc 1 2 2003 (10) sec 1