IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P. s No. :P‘l3o 2009 PETITIONER : Pradeep Kumar Suryawanshi, S/o Shri V. R. Suryawanshi, aged about 22 years, R/o M.I.T.I. Koni, Bilaspur, Tahsil 8a District-Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS w, k ‘ RESPONDENTS: 1) State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Secretary — Departme of Man Power 8L Planning, D‘K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2) The irector Emloyment 8L Training Directorate, Women Pytechnic Campus, Bairan azar, Raipur (C.G.) B 3)’ The Joint Director (Training) — Industrial Trainin Institutes, Bilaspur, DistrcBilaspur (C.. 4) Te Principal - Industria rainin Ititute, I.T.I. Gharghoda, District — Raigarh (.) p D ) g itv G) h l Tg ns C.G: / 5) Deuty irector Directorate (Employment 85 Training Chhattisgarh Raipur (C.G.) 6) Mithilesh Kumar Pael, Training Officer, Grade—111 (Electrician) Industrial Training Institute, ITI Gharghoda, Distt.—Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1) PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER: As per cause title. nt / D p ol t N HIGH COURT OF CHHA’I‘TIS‘ARH : BILASPUR Wlit Pétition (S) No‘ 7430 of 2009 Pradaep Kumar Sumrawamshi Varsus spondents Siam of Chhattisgarh 85 others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon’ble Shn’ Satis Agnihot‘ri J.) Shr Raghvendra Pradha, Advocam for the petitioner. S h Petitionétr Re i n hri N. N. Roy, Panel Lawycr for thc r€sp0ndentsf Sam. Heard. (Passed on this 29m day of January, 2010) 1. Th6 petitioner, by this petition, soeks a diroction to the respondsnts to allow the petitioner to continue on the post f Trailling fiicer, Grade-HI (Guest Lecturer) and to cancel te appomtment of the resondent No.5, who was appoirxted by order dated 299.209 (Armexure 1}. . Brie fact, 1'11 nutshell, are that on 6.12.200 (nnexure Pf 2), te petitioner was appointed on the post of Training Oftioer Grade—1H (Guest cturer} f one academic session. Subsequently, by order etect 29.9.2009 (Annexure Pf 1) the respondent No.6 has been appointed on the post of Trajnmg Ofcer Grade—HI on contract basis for a maximum eriod of one year or till reular app/ointment i made. 9 Lnned counsel appealing for the etitioner subms that the action of the responnts authorities is arbitrary, nrational and contrary to law in appointing the respondent No.6 at the place, where the petitioner is working as Training Officer Grade-EH (Guest Lecturer). No order of removal of the petitioner has been. issued and by oral order the petitioner has been stopped from performing his duties. 4. I have heard learned counsel appealing for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. Ul. 3 By letter dated 28.9.2007 (Annexure P/3) it is evident that. an am‘angenient for appointment of Guest Lecturer was made in \ order to complete the training programme. In furtherance of G h h O R D E R jOrai} o Q h p 0 P/ 2 f s 7 A h Le or d ii p g s ea p it de] that maugement the pétitionar Wés angaged as Guest Twining Officer (Elecu‘ician) on daily wagss, on lemuneration of Rs. 80/ — per day, per peliod (Ammxure 13/4). No appointment order haS been filed by the peiitioner; indicating the nature of his appomtment. It appears that the appomtmem of The petitioner was made per period wages basis as Guest Lecturer. After appointment of the. respondent No.6 by order dated 29.9.2009‘ (Annexure P/ l), the services of the petitioner was dispensed with. Thereafter, the petin'oner was never engaged in service even as Guest Training Officer. Salary memo (Annexure 13/4) indicates that for the month of July, 2009, the petitioner was paid Rs. 7200/— for 23 periods at the rate of Rs. 80/~ per 6. It is evident that the engagement of the petitioner was purely on temporary basis as Guest Lecturer (Training Oiiicer). The petitioner was never appointed in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment. Thus, the yetitioner has period. no legal right to reinstatement and regularization of his services. The nature of appointment of the petitioner is purely on daily wages basis. The. same was not done in accordance vitith rules and as such the petitioner does not acquire any right to the post. It is well settled principle of law by a catena of decisions that the employee appointed deehors 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 he was legally appointed, in accordance with law. (See Secretary, ‘State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi {3i and othersl, Official Liquidator Vs, Dayanand and others? 3. Thus the petitioner is not entitled to any relief, as For the reasons afore-stated, I do not find any merit in this Wiit petition, which deserves to be and is dismissed accordingly. claimed in this petition. i,_iv)L,iJ»err Sdl- i Satish ‘K. Agnihotn Judge Thakurm 1 2006 (4) SCC 1 Z 2008 (103 sec 1