fflGHCOtIRTOFCHHATTISGAfiHA'FBmASPlJR Writ PetUfonJNo. WSZ<sf2W6 PETITtONER RESPONDENT8 Kamal Singh Thakur S/o Shri Dau Sm^i, aged about 37 years R/o Gram Laehhna, PO Muripar Tah. KUairagarh, Distt.Rajiiandgaon(GG). VERSUS , ' 1. State ofCMiattisgarhthroughThe Secretaryto the Govt. of ChUattisgarh, Forest Department, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG). 2. Consenrator of Porest Circie Khairagarii, Distt. Rajnandga>n (CG). 3. Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Circle Khairagarh Distt. Rajnatidgaou (C6). (WRTT PETTHON UNDER ARTICLE 226^27 OFTH&eONSTTTUTION QF INDIA) (SB: Hon'UeMr. Satfsh K. Aemhotri.J^ Present ; Shri Vivek Sharma, Advocate&f the petitioner. Shri A.S. Kachllwaha, Deputy Advocate Geaeral for the State/respoildents. ORALORDER (Passed<>ii201h (»fyebruaiy,20W) 1. The petitioner was appointedon 04.08.83 (AimexureP/l)as Truek Cleaner (Conductor) by the respondeHt No. 3 on <!ailywages basis, thereafter tfae petitionerwas placed attlie disposa! offorest cirele KhairagaA, onthe saine capacity, on temporary basis, by oi-derdated 06.03.85 (Annexure P/2) and eontuiued engagemeirt for same time. Thereafter, services ofthe petitioner was again engaged on 07.11.94 by oral appointnietrt, in the same capacity, on temporaiy basis. The service of the petitioner was dis-ehgaged on 07.10.02. IXu-iagtheabove period i.e. 04.08.83 fo 07.10.2002, theservices of the petitioner was disengaged on several tinies witfaout their beuig continuation iii service ohdailywages basis. 2. By tliis petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to consider tfae case of the petitiorier for regulanzation in tfae light of tfae judgmefltdated 14J 1.2003 passedbytheHigh e<nirtbfMadhyaPradesha^ Jabalpiu- in O.A. No. 2904/1995 infhe matterofKamalSinghThalqifVs. Stafe ofM.F. and offaers and othCT wnnect^ m^ Sahu petitions were disposed of witfa an order tfaat it would be open to tfae State Govemment to eonstitiite aiyropriate conunittee, if so advised, qua each department ororganization so that properscrutiny is done for the purpose of regylarization in an appropnate manner or adjustment under some other scheme. 3. The petitioner has not preferred any other application in the Higli Court of Madliya Pradesh at Jabalpur.seekingcompliance ofthe above stated order. In tlus petition, ti-ie order dated 14.11.2003, passed by the Higli Court of Madliya Pradesh stands impliedly overmled, in view ofthe decision ofthe Gonstitution Bench of Supreme Court of India in the matter of State of Kamataka imd Others Vs. Uma Devi and others* {2006 (4) SCC 1} Thus, no order can be passed inthe light oftlie order dated 14.11.2003 passed by the High Court ofMadhya Pradesb 'mO.A. No. 2904/1995. 4. Services ofthe petitioner was not engaged on regiilar post. AAnittedly, as and when work was available for tiie petitioner he was engaged. Thus, the appointment ofthe petitionervwss not in accordanee with law and dehors the constitutional scheme of appointment. The petitioner is, at present, not engaged for any work. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, has categarically held that appomtmeiit on daily wages, contract and temporary, if not in accordance with constitutional scheme, are not proper or legal appointment. The petitioner has not acquired any right to the post as liis appomtmeiit was aot in accordance withthe constitutional scheme ofappointinettt. Thus, the petitioner has no right to reinstatement or regularization or continuation ui service. 6. In view ofthe foregioinn^ the petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotrl Judge 1.2006(4)SCC1