^."' c '"\y ^^ ESa C.f \rvr>2— In the Hon'ble Hish Court of Chhattissarh. w.p^No......$.7.3.. <»- Petitioner A ^w ^Smt. Suman Mishra, aged 36 years, W/o Shri P.K.Mishra, R/o QuarterNo. 10ft StreetNo.2, Nandini Town Ship, Tahsil Dhamdha, Distt. Durg C.G. <" .tl' ..&' ^ Versus <i.~ Respondents ^L ^^ .-.•-''" 4. ""5. The State Govt. of Chliattisgarh, Through - The Secretary, Higher Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Kulpati, Pt. Ravi Shankar Shiikla Vishva-Vidyalaya, Raipiu- (C.G.) The Principal, Nagrik Kalyan Mahavidyalaya, Nandini Nagar, Tahsil Dhamdha, Distt. Durg (C.G.) The President, Nagrik Kalyan Mahavidyalaya, Naiidini Nagar, Tahsil Dhamdha, Distt. Diu-g (C.G.) Shri Slmkaiit Pradhan, Aged 30 years, Asstt. Professor, Political Science, Nagrik Kalyan Maliavidyalaya, Nandini . Nagar, Tahsil Dhamdha, Distt. Durg (C.G.). Shrl Ajay Kuaar Shtfela, Lab Techclclac> Nggrlk Kalyan Wahavldyala Nandlnl Nagar Townshlp, Etstt.Durg (G.G.) ::2:: Writ Petition Under Articles 228/2^ of The Constitution Of India for the issuance of WRIT in the nature of MANDAMUS certiorari. Prohibition and for other suitable writ or writs. order or orders, direction or directions. HIGH COURT OF JODICATORE €3HHATnSGARH;BILASPin^ Sin^e Bench: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. A®iihotri,J. W.P. (sl Ho. 593 Qf2(X»7 Petitioner ; Siat. Suiuan Mishra Versus Respondents : The State Govt. of Chliattisgarh & ofhers Shri H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Stari Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta, Deputy Govemment Advocate for fhe respondent No. 1/State. ^ ORDER (Passed oa this 31st day ofjaauary, 2007) 1. Learaed counsel appeanng for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on temporaiy basis as Assistaat Professor in. Political Science at th.e fixed pay scale of Rs. 1155/- by order dated 3.10.2001 (Annexure P/7) passed by the respondent-CoUege. The appom.tment of the petitioner in the same capacity continued for fhe academic session by several orders passed time to time. 2. The respondent-CoUege in order to appoint fhe Assistant Professor on regular basis, issued an advertiseinent, callng for applications from aU fhe eligible caudidates. The petitioner along wifh others applied for appoiatment on fhe said post. 3. Accordiag to llie petitioner, the petitioner was caBed for iuterview, held on. 29.10.2005. The petitioner failed finaUy. 4. Being aggrieved, the petitiouer filed a writ petition, being W.P. No. 1023/2006, impugning thfi order dated 24.12.2005, whereby services oflh.e petitiouerwas renioved due to non-selection ofttie petitioner in regular selection process. This Court, after Iiaving examming aB the 'IJ ^f. ^ aspects, granted liberiy to tlie petitioner to fite the statutoiy appeal, and in fhe event, the appeal was filed, it was directed that the saiae should be cousidercd and decfeled, in accordan.ee with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, wifhiu a period of two months from the date ofproduction/ieceipt ofappeal. It was fiu'ther observed fhat if any grievance still rcmains, fhe petitioncr wouM avail the remedy luider fhe law. 5. The ChanceQor, beuig fhe appeltate aufhorily, by his order dated June, 2006 (Anuexure P/l), haviag considered case ofthe petitioner, rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner on the gromid that the ioner was not selected in regular selection pnx;ess. Thus, the order dated 24.12.2005 (Annexure P{2} was rightly passed. 6. It is weB settled principles oflaw fhat the Court, while exercising its power ofjudicial review can go into the decision maldng process, but not fhe decision itself, except in case of perversity, fflegality aad irregularity. In the present case, ao perveraily, fflegality, irregularity and impropriely is atleged and fouud in the decision makiug piocess. 7. I have gone fhrough the order passed by fhe Chancellor, nothing as stated above, is foiuid. Thus, no interference is warraated iu the order. ^- 8. In view of the settled position of law as enunciated by a Constitutional Bench offhe Supreme Court in the case ofSecretarg, StdteofKamciteika and others ys. UmadevP wNch was followed later on in various decisions by ttie Suprcme Court, viz. Acemwts Offlcer l&&^ A.P.SSTV: asvS. others vs. P. Cftsndra Sekhara Raa and ather^, Surtnjder Praseid nu/art vs. V.P. Rqfya Krlshi Ulpadan Mandl Parishad and other^, Nagetr Mahapdlika (now WtunisSpal Carpn.) vs. iSttafe of U.P. and othsrs4 aad KP. Steite Jtocut Tlrunsport Corporwfion vs. Man Slnglf, dafly rated, temporary or ad hoc appointees have no right to fhe post as their appointment was not in accordaace with fhe constitutional scheme of ttie appointment and not in accoidance wifh any Rules, Regulations, as fi-amed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitutioa of India. 9. Thus, fhis writ petition. is disinissed siuniaarily. No order as to costs. Sd/- SatisbK.Agn^trl Judge 1 (2006)4SCC1 2 (2006) 7 SCC 488 3 (20)8) 7 SCC 684 4 2006 AIRSCW 2497 5 2008 AIFiSCW 5159 Bablu s-'"