'^ ^te-^'^ y' ..^^ /^^ :ri Petitioner HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BLLASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 985 of 2008 Sukh Lal Chouhan, S/o. Arjun Ram Chouhan, aged about 42 years, R/o. Ex-Daily Wages Employee, National Sample Survey, Organisation, Regional Office, Surya Apartment, Katora Talab, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). Versus •cf Respondents 1) Union of India, through Ministry of Statistics and P.1. Department, New Delhi. 2) Deputy Director General (Adm.), National Sample Survey Organisation (Field Operation Division) New Delhi. 3) Deputy Director General, National Sample Survey Organisation (Field Operation Division) Regional Office Ist floor, Surya Apartments, Katora Talab, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 4) Assistant Director, National Sample Survey Organisation (Field Operation Division), Jabalpur (MP). (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) SB: Hon'ble Wlr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri C.R. Sahu, counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Asst. Solicitor General for Union of India. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 15th February, 2008) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Peon in the Office of the Deputy Director General, National Sample Survey Organisation (Field Operation Division) Regional Office, Office on dailywage basis on 15-10-1996. 2) On query asto whether the petitioner was appointed through selection open to tffe public i.e., similarly situated persons at that point of time, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly submits that the petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis on the post of Peon and there was no selection by any means. "";'17~l "';:s^t'-^s' '^- -".^fe'IB;^;'*^ ^ 3) It is well settled principle of law that the appointment dehors the constitutional scheme of employment or not in accordance with law, is not legal and proper. Thus, the appointee has no right to reinstatement or continuation of service or regularization in services (See- Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and others {(2006) 4 SCC 1}. 4) Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was terminated from services on 12-4-1999 (Annexure P/4) and thereafter tfie petitioner was asked orally to leave the service without giving any notice. 5) Be that as it may, since the appointment of the petitioner itself was not legal or not in accordance with law, the petitioner has no right to continue in services. The principle of natural justice or fair play in-action is neither relevant nor necessary in the facts of the case. 6) Accordingly, the petition is dismissed summarily. _-—'' Raju Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge