\<A In the HonbleHighJ^Qurt of Chhatishsarh at Bilaspur (C.( W.P.NO..........^ft3........2005 ^^^\^ ..-••"<^-'"^>*' ^-'iy--- ^ Petitioner y Resppondent Navin Kumar Yadava, aged 27 years son of Shri B.L.Yadava. Assistant Professor (Contract System adhoc Appointee) Govt. College Balod, Tahsil Balod District Durg (C.G.) Versus 1 The State Govemment ofChhattishgarh Thiough fhe Secretary, College Education Ministry, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Govt. Science,Arts & Commerce College,, Balod Tahsil Balod Distt. Durg (C.G.) Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 oftheConstitutionofIndia ^f'a9 y^-^ H!GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : Bit WRiTPETjTION NQ.2S9 OF 2005 PETiTjONER Versus RESPONDENTS ' The State Chhaflisgarh & (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution of india) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri. J. Present:- Shri Somkanf Verma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Dy. Govt. Advocate forthe State. ORDER (ORAU (Passed o" thls 1 Sm day of February, 2010). •"•' 1) By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to consider his case for reaufarization of his service from the date of his initiaS appointment on daiiy wages basis. 2) Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that initialfy the patitioner was appointed in the respondent department for a period of 89 days on daiiy wages, frsereafter the sald period was extended from time to time, but tiil date the seroce of 'the petitioner has not been reaularized in SDite of the fact that the work and conduct of the Detitioner is found satisfactorv. Thus. this 3) On the other hsnd, iearned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner was not appointed in accordance with the consniutiona! scheme o'? e , as the petitiones' was appointed on daiiy wages basis. Even the seroices of the daily wager couid be terminated at any point of ^sme without any notice, and thus, the petitioner is not entitled to any reiief. ,.^<«4 i:f Eto-« ^ ';,'^Ssa 4) i3J o? i have heard Isarned counse! pieadings and the documents The issue invotved in the present the Supreme Court, in a catena mon is no tonger decisions has m; sntegra as cSear that the emoloyees aDC'ointed on daiiy v./aaes basis have no right to cont'nue in service or reauiari: le appointment itsei'F is w hors the constitutional scheme of empiovmei Admittedly, ths petitioner was appointed on daiiy v/ages basis ai not sn accordance with the constitutionai The apDointment of' the Detitioner was oureiv on temporary basis. A temi ry, ad hoc e t/^jndl i/daily wager canr S Ll reguiarization, continuance or reinstatement in sewice on the basis ot' aooointment, which was temporar/ and not in accordance with law and the same was de hors the constitutjonal scheme of empioyment. (See Secretary, State of Karnataka Umadew (3) and Others', indian Drugs & Phamjai Workmen, indian Drugs & Pharmacei.itlcais Lto'.*, Officia' >/. Dayanand and oftera^ and State of Punjab and Slngh and Others'). 7) With regard to reguiarisation of the empioyees working on daily wsges basis, the Supreme Court iri Umadevi (supra), observed as "Thus. it is ciear that adhsrence to the rule of equaiity in pubilc empioyment Is a basic feature of our Constitution and since ihe ruie of law is the core of our Constitution, a court would certainiy be disabted from passing an order uphoiding a vioiation ofArticie 14 or in ordering 1 (2006) 4 SCC 1 •i 2007 (1)SCC 408 3(20Q8$1QSCC1 4(2009)9SCC514 ^ the overtooking of the need to comply with the requirsmsnts of Artlcls 14 rsad wlth Articis 16 of the Consfnution. Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public emDiQ'y'ment, this Court 'A'hile iaying down the Eaw, has necessariiy to hoid that unless the appointment is in terms of the reievant rules and after a proper competition among quaiified persons, the sams wouid not confer any right on the appolntee." 8) The above rstio iald dcwn by the Supreme Court has been Othws v. State reiterated by this Court in Ashwanl of Chhattgarh & Anothe^ and Somendra Pratap Singh v. The State of M.P. & Q'hers9' Singh fsupra'). the pstitioner therein oreferred a writ apDeai beln< !.A. (PR) No. 2077 of 20Q8, which was dismissed ~iS Uivision Sench of this Court bv order dated 29-4-2008 affirmina the order passed by the Singie Bench. Thereagainst, the matter was taken up to the Supreme Court by filing Specisi Leave Petition being S.L.P.(C) No. 27190/2008 (Somendra Pratap Singh v. of Chhattisgarh & Others), which was also dismissed by the Supreme Court affirming the view taken bv this Court. vide its order dated 23-3-2009. 9) This Court 'mSanjay Patil v. State of ChhaWsgarh & Anoihef1, while deajing wsth simiiar issue obsewed that "if the State Qovernment has reguiarized some of tho daiiy wagers, not appointed in accordance v»'ith the consistutional scheme of empioyment, this Court cannot Jssu® a positive direction to lega!ise the iiiegaj appolntment on the ground that certain iiiegal appointments have been leaaiized/resu'arized bv the emoiover. 5WP (S) No.1743 of 2009 deolded on 28-4-2003' SW.P.(S) No. 1347 of 2005 decided on 26-2-2008 7 WP (S$ No.5845 of 2009 decided on 9-10-2009 , ;TEai^rS -^. y^ FEiBSi B J / ^-—^''•^' 10) in this context, the Supreme Court, in Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. tlnion ofind'a, obsep/sd as under: "34. it is not a case 13) 14) !i<ii, ia same can be regularised. The Court may not take serious note of an irregularify within the rneaning of the provisions of the Act. But if an appointment is illegai, it is non ast in the eye of nuliity." 11) Further, in State of Punjab S anofter v. Suylt Singh & Others', She Supreme Court reaffirmed the above ratio in the foiiowing terms: "39. We woujd, however, before parting make an observation that the submissson of She teamed counset fhat oniy because some junfors have got the benefit, thesame by Itseif cannot be a ground for extending the same benefit to the resoondsnts herein. !t is now we! known that ths equality cisuse contained in Articte 14 should be invoked only where the partles are simiiariy situated and where orders passed in their favour are tega! and not iliegai. it has a positivs concept." 12) tn vtew of foreooing. for the reasons stated hereinabove and applying the weii settled principies of iaw to the facts of the present case v/hersin the petitioner was appointed pureiy on temporary basis, he is not entitied to any reilef. In the result, the writ petition is dismisse< 4) There shail be no order asto costs. Gowri SdA : SatishK. Agnihotri \Judge ° (2007) 4 SCC 54 S(2009)9SCC514