HjGHCOURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BILASPUR\ Coram: Petjtsoners Hon'ble Shrl Dhirendra IVSishra & Hon'bSe Shri R.N. Chandrakar^V WritAppeaiNo.120of2011 1. 2. Vs. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Surendra Singh, S/o Shri Rambahor Singh, aged about 50 years, R/o Village Rajpur, Post Rajpur, Distt. Sarguja (CG) Ani! Kumar Choubey, aged about 46 years, S/o Shri Vishwanath Choubey, R/o Viltage Rajpur, Post Rajpur, Distt. Sarguja (CG) State of Chhattisgarh, through: The Secretary, Public Works Department, DKS. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) The Head Engineer, Public Works Department, Raipur, Distt. Ralpur (CG) The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Bilaspur, Distt. Biiaspur (CG) The Superintending Engineer, Pubiic Works Department, Ambikapur Division, Distt. Surguja (CG) The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division No.1, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (CG) Present: Shri D.R. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Shri B.D. Badgaiyya, counse! forthe appeilants. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Dy. A.G. for the State. ORAL JUDGMENT (05.4.2011) 1. AppeJlants' writ petition seeking directions to the respondents to take them in service or in alternate, direct the respondents to consider and decide their representation fjied on 08.12.2010 has been dismissed by learned Single Judge by the impugned order. Hence this appeal. j-9- 2. Shri D.R. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate with Shri B.D, Badgaiyya, learned counse! for the appellants vehemently argued that the writ petition has been dismissed in iimine without hearing the appellants on merits. 3. Learned Single Judge ought to have called for response from the other side before dismissing the writ petition. The finding in the impugned order that the appeilants' appointment cannot be held as legal appointment is ateo erroneous and the reiiance by learned Single Judge on the impugned judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of ©fRajasthan & Others vs. Daya Lai & Others reported in (2011) 2 SCC 429 is misplaced. 4. Heard iearned counsel for the appellant. Perused the pjeadings ofthe writ petitlon, documents appended therewith as also the impugned order. 5. indjsputably, the appeltants were appointed on daily wage basis in the year 1 992 and they were removed from service in the year 2002. 6. Learned Sirigle Judge considering the aforesaid indisputabie fact, held that there is no dispute that the appointment of the appeliants was on daiiy wage basis and not in accordance with the constitutional scheme of empioyment. Thus, the appointment of the appeilants cannot be he!d as tegal appointment. 7. Relyjng upon the weil settled principies of law in this regard, it has been further heid that no writ In favour of the appeliants directing the respondents to reinstate/continue the appellants in service can be issued. 8. Considering the undisputed fact of the case, we are in agreement with learned Single Judge that the appeiiants did not have anyiegal right for relnstatement or continuance on >r^f ^•3^: )g Priya their post on daily wage basis in accordance with the constitutionai scheme of employment. 9. We find no substance in this appeal. The same deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itseif. —- Sd/- Dhirendra Mishar Judge Sd/- R.N.Chandrakar Judge