^ mGHCOBRTOFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR PETmONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETmON rS') No: 5757 of2007 Gopal Prasad Gupta, S/o Shri Navratan Prasad Qupta, aged about 63 years, Time Keeper (Temmiated), Irrigation Departmeilt, Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, R/o Kariwadih, Post Nagoi, via Chhal, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarii(C.G.) . VERSUS,. . • • , . : : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Water Kesources, D.K.S. Buildmg, Mantralaya.RaipiurChhattisgarh. 2. The Superaiteridmg Engineer, Kslo Water Resources, Raigarh(C.G.) ' 3. The Executiye Engmeer, Water Resourees Division, Dharamjaigarh, Distriet Raigarh (CQ) WRTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 QF THE CONSTmjnON OF INBIA SBiHon'MeShriSattohK.AaiuaMrfri.J. Present: Shri B.D.Guru, Advocate forfhe petittoner. Ms. Sunita Jain, Pand Lawyerfbrthe State/respondents. ORALORDER - :;.1:; ,-: ^' 1' •1: (Passed on 03" day of-July, 2008) ;• 1. Leamedcounsel appearingfor thepetitioner submitsAattfaeservicesof the petitioner was engaged bythe respondent No. 3 without passing any order since the year 1998. Leamed cqunsel further subimts that the services pf the petitioner was not pursuaat to any advertisefflent or selection. On 24.11^98 (Annexure P/l), services of fhe petitioner was discontinued on the g-ound that the petitioner indulged in eleetion campaignforacandidate.ThepetitionerpreferFedanappUcatibabefore fhe Tribund. The Tribunal rejected the applicationon 21.6.2002 (Amiexure P/2) pnthe groundthat the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertamhis application. 2. Bemgaggrieved,thepetitionerprefen'edawritpetitionbeingNo. 1862 of2003 (Gopal Prasad Oupta v. The M.P. State AAnimstrative TriBunal 4. & Ofliers) before the Division Bench ofthis Court. This Court, on 09.08.2007 (Annexure P/3), ontherequestQfleamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, permitted the petitioner to witfadraw thepetition with liberty to file a fresh petitioa. Thus, ttiis petition has been filed on The dispute involved in this case is asto whether the petitioner having been appointed on daily wages basis dehors the constitutional scheme of employment without inviting applications fi-om similarly situated persons and without going through selection prpcess, has a right to continue or to be re-appointed on the post. Further, it is an admitted faet that while working on dailywages basis, the petitioner indulged into eleetion campaign. Be that as it may, once the appbinttnent ofan employee is found illegal anduneonstitutional.heeamiotbepemuttedtocontmueorre-appQmted on any ground. Admittedly, the appointment ofthe petitioner was not in accordaace withthe constitutional scheme of employmentas enshrined under Article 14 and 16 ofthe Constitution oflndia. Thus, appointment of the petitioner itself is illegal. Subsequent action ofremoyal frbm service camiot be questioned. The service ofthe daily wager employee can be tarminated at any point of time. (See Secretary, State of Kamataka and others v.UmaDevi (3) andothers ). For Ihe reasons mentioned hereinabove, this petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Aimf ' (2006) 4 SCC I