ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. APPLICANT : ’ VERSU§ NON—APPLmANT/ RESPONDENTS IN HE M.P. STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUAL AT RAIPUH OF 1998 ”(pg ”AqmW)’ BAIJNATH SAHoo / (Ex. U.D.T. previously appointed on adhoc basis) S/O SHRI NARBADA PRASAD SAHOO R/ -VIL AG -DHA AGHAT DISI I. —V BILASPIIB (M.P.I AGED ABOUT 41,YEARS, TAH. MONGOLI (2) STATE OF M.P.. THROUGH COLLECTOR, M EILASTP,@7;:13 I A 3 UR (M.P.) COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION (DPI OFFICE) NEAR CHETAK BRIDGE, BHOPAL (M.P.! JOINT DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, EDUCATION. DEPTT. EDUCATION DISTT. BILAPUR R0. & DISTT. BILASPUR (M.P.) APPLICATION UNDER SEQ IION 19 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TBIBUNAL ACI. 1985 INQ.13 QF 1985) READ MITH ARTICLES 14 81 16 QF THE CONS I ITUTION mu“, GOVERNMENT OF M.P., ” (3) OF INDIA T m f , HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILAEPUR 1 8ingle Bench: Hon’ble 8hri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. w. P. [3) No. 2401 of 2005 Petitioner : Baijnath Sahoo Vcrsus Respondants : State of Madhya Pradcsh (now Chhattisgarh) 8n others Shri Alok Nigam, Advocate for the petitioner. Miss Sunita Jain, Panel lawyer for the respondents. 0 R D E R (Passed on this 5th day of January‘ 2007 ! 1. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed. as Upper Division Teacher on ad hoe basis vide order dated 14.9.1982 and thereafter his services came to an end w.e.£ 30.4.1983 The petitioner by this petition seeks a direction to the respondents for reinstatement/ reappointment of the petitioner. 2v. In view of the settled position of law as enunciated by a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Coult in the case of Secretary, State of Kamataka and others Vs. Umadevil which was followed later on in various decisions by, the Supreme Court, viz. Accounts “Omcer (AM A.P.SRm and others vs. P. Chandra Sekhara Rao and othersz; Surinder Prasad Tiwari us. U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parisiiad and others3, Nagar Mahapalika (now Mimiclpal Comm) vs. State of (LP. and others‘ and (LP. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Man Stngh5, daily rated, temporary or ad hoe appointees have no right to the post as their appointment was not in accordance with the constitutional scheme of the appointment and not in accordance with any Rules, Regulations, as framed under the pmviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. . In the present petition, appointment of the petitioner was on contact basis de-hors the constitutional scheme and as such, the appointment came to an end aiter the contact period. 4. For the reasons above-stated and as per the dicta laid down by the Supieme 'Court, the petitioner is not entitled for reappointment] reinstatement in the. service. This petition is accordingly dismissed‘ No order as to costs. Vi / "L i ,,_ # _ Sd/- 1 Satish K. Agnihotr' Judge (2006) 4 SCC 1 (2006) 7 $CC 488 (2006) 7 SCC 654 2006 AIR SCW 2497 2006 NR SCW 5159 i i i i Ul§b3~4 Thakur i