BO HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. APPELLANTS PETITIONERS WritADpeal No. 24 of 2009 Versus RESPONDENTS 1 4 5 Surendra Rajput S/o - Baijnath, aged about 25 years, R/o Gram Panchayat - Surhi, Janpad Panchayat - Lormi, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) Ram Ratan, S/o- Raghuvir Pandey, aged about 25 years, R/o - Gram Panchayat - Chifli, Janpad Panchayat - Lormi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rura! Development, ^ D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) The Commissioner, Chhattisgarh Employment Guarantee Councii, Vikas Ayukt Karyalaya, Vikas Bhawan, Civil Line, Raipur (C.G.) Union of India, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Rural development, New Delhi. District Programme Coordinator (Collector) under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) Janpad Panchayat, Lormi, Through the Chief Executive Officer, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) Zila Panchayat Bitaspur, Through the Chief Executive Officer, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) Q\ WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 OF CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH)RULES, Present: Shri F.S. Khare, learned counsel for^the appellants. Shri V.V.S. Murthy, learned Deputy Advocate General with Shri Akhil Agrawal, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondents No. 1, 2 and 4. Shri R. Pradhan, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3. lAI JUDGMENT (12m May, 2009) The following judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on I.A. No.01/2009, an application for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the grounds taken in the application, we aresatisfied that the appellants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3) I.A. No. 01/2009, therefore, is allowed and the delay in fiting the writ appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Learned counsel for the parties are heardon admission. 5) . The appellants have fiied this writ appeal against the impugned order dated 21.07,2008, passed in W.P.S. No.7756/2007. 6) The appellants/ petitioners were seeking a direction to the respondents to allow them to continue on the post of 'Gram Rojgar Sahayak' for one more year. h /: 9^- 7) The petitioners were appointed as 'Gram Rojgar Sahayak' oncontractual basjs for a period of one year. In the year 2008, the respondents initiated recruitment process for the post of 'Gram Rojgar Sahayak'. The petitioners participated in the said selection process. Inspite of grantof weightage often marks on account of their past experience on the said post, none of the appellants could be selected on a comparative merit of the candidates who participated in the selection process. The petitioners, thereafter, filed writ petition seeking^their continuance on the said post. 8) The learned Single Judge considering that the petitioners were appointed on contractual basis for a limited period and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka & others v. Umadevi (3) and others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, held that the petitioners had no right to claim their continuance on the said post and therefore, dismissed the writ petition vide impugned order dated 21.07.2008. 9) Shri F.S. Khare, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the appellants' writ petition following the dictum ofthe Apex Court in the case of State of Kamataka & others v. Umadevi (supra) as the said case is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 10) Admittedly, the appellants/petitionerswere appointed on the post of 'Gram Rojgar Sahayak' for a limited period of one year on contract basis. The Apex Court in the case of State of ^3 ^ subba Karnataka & others v. Umadevi (supra) has categorically held in para 47 that a person appointed on contractual basis for a limited period cannot claim his continuance on the said post after expiry of the contract period as a matter of right. Thus, the petitioners cannot claim their continuance on the post of 'Gram Rojgar Sahayak' as of right. 11) We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the impugned order whereby the appellants' writ petition was dismissed. 12) The writ appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- suNn.»JMARSINHA Judge :!•;-•...;; "1 '