IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILAS rc.G.'i Writ Petition No. -S~OJ- /2003 PETITIONERS [SfSf f t. VERSUS. RESPONDENTS 1. Ram Lallu Shamia S/o. Shri Vinayak Prasad Sharma aged about 50 years 2. AbdulMajid S/o.Shri RahmatullaKhan Etged about 53 years • 3. Anjani Prasad Sharma S/o. Shri Rajmani Sharma ^ aged about 54 years All working as Revenue Inspector/Madadgar, Collectorate (Collecfor Office) Bilaspur(C.G.). 1. State ofChhattisgarh through Revenue Secretary D.K.S.Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.). 2. Commissioner Land Record & Setilement State ofChUattisgarh Raipur (C.G.). 3. Settlement Officer Collectorate, Bilaspur (C.G.). 4. Stete ofMadhya Pradesh through Secretary - Reyenue Vallabh Bhavan, Bhopal(M.P.) 5. Commissioner LandRecord Gwalior (M.P.) 6. SettlementOfficer Sidhi, District Sidhi (M.P.) >^- ^M_-± 3?zS< 9 WRITPETmOmjNDERARTICLE226/227THE CGNSTITUTIQNOF INDIA" w&s ,.•»• HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR '-^.' PETmONERS RESPONDENTS W.P. No. 501 of2003 Ram Lallu Shaima & Others. VERSUS : State ofCUiattisgarh & OAers. WRTTPETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA : ' :' . •- - ~ • DB:Hon'ble ShriSattshK. Aemhotri & Hon'bIeSlmPrashantMisiira.JJ. Present: Shri N.K.Chatterjee withMs.Pushpa Dwivedi, Advocatefor thepetitioners. Shri V.V.S.Moorthy, Deputy Advocate Generalforfhe State/ respondeat No. 1 to 3. ORDERfORAL) (Passed on 14a day of December, 2009) Per Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Heard. 1. The present petition arises from the judgment and order dated 31.08.1998 (Annexure P/l) passed by the Madliya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in T.A. No. 3968/1988 wherein the termination order dated 12.05.1987 (Aimexure P/2) passed by the Settlement Qfficer, District Sidhi was upheld. 2. The indisputable facts, in brief, are that the petitioners were appointed by order dated 06.01.1979 (,4jmexure P/4) on temporary basis on the post of Revenue Inspecfor Madadgar. 61 the said order, it was made clear that the appointments are purely temporary.It was iurther observed that fhe appointment offhe petitioners may cpntinue till properly qualified Revenue Inspector Chaimnen are available. The petitioners continued to work till 12.5.1987, when by order dated 12.5.1987, the services ofthe petitioner which was purely on temporan' basis, came to aii end oa the ground fhat - tfaey could not obtain any training and were not properly trained for the job. Being aggrieved, fhe petitioners preferred a writ petition before the High /l/. ^T^ lsT'g?3'§" 3. Court of Madhya Pradesh in M.P. No. 1518/1987 on 23.5.1987. The impugned order dated 12.05.1987 (Armexure P/2), was ordered to remain suspended until fiirfher orders by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh vide order dated 25.05.1987 (Aimexure P/6). Thereafter, the State Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') came into existence and the matter was transfsrred to Tribunal and renumbered as T.A. No. 3968/1988. The Tribunal, after holding that the appointment of the petitioners was purely temporary and they could not pass the Patwari examination or Drawing examination during their sendce period and as such- the petitioners eneagement eame to an end. It was farther observed that fhe appoiiitment ofthe petitioners was made de hors the rules as there was no post like Revenue Inspector Madadgar m the entire setup of the Revenue Department. Tlie appointment was made to meet the contingent requirement of the settlement ofBce in Sidhi. Thus, the petition was dismissed being devoid ofmerit. However, the leamed Tribunal in the last para ofthe impugnedjudgmentand order dated 31.08.1988 (Annexure P/l), observed that if the petitioners were working as Revenue Inspector Madadsar on the strength of the stay granted on 25.5.1987; then the respondent shall consider them to appoint on the post of Chainmen, if it is available or any other post which is available and for which the petitioners are entitled to be appointed. Contention of leamed counse! appearing for the petitioners is that the petitioners were appointed in January, 1979 and have continued thereafter on the post ofRevenue Inspector Madadgar. Even after their termination in May, 1987, they continued on the said post on tHe strength ofstay granted on 25.5.1987. Thus, they may be appointed on the post ofChainmen or aiiy ofher equivalent post. Ms. Dwivedi appearing with Shri Chatterjee further submits that there is a post of Madadgar still available who are appointed vS^SSWs' .;^.f»-ts:^ ^\ ^€^-^ "tlts ws "%,. '^-"''^ on temporary basis. Thus, Ms, Dwivedi claims continuation and regularisation of the petitioners. Ms. Dwivedi fiwfher submits fhat the petitioners have passed the examination ofRevenue Inspectors also. 4. On the other hand, Shri Moorthy, leamed Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents submits that there is no cadre ofRevnue Inspector Madadgar in the Revenue Department and the appointmeut on the said post are made always on the requiremeiit ofwork on temporary basis. The appointment carmot be held as in accordance with the constitutional seheme ofemployment. 5. We have heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appendedthereto. 6. The Tribunal has eonsidered the submission ofthe petitioner with regard to passing ofthe test in M.P. No. 1171980 (Santosh Kumar Shrivastava & Others v. State ofM.P. & another) whereinit was observed as under: "The allegation ofthe petitioners fhat they were Assistanf Revenue Inspectors is not correct. The order relatmg to their appointments goes to show that they were only helpers. Their appointment was until further ordeis aad in a purely temporary basis capacily and could be tennmated without aiiynotice. R appears that the petitioners had not undergone the Patwari training and were appointed ^ a stop gap arrangement on purely adhoe basis and their services have been terminated on the ground fhat they were not qualified. In our opinion since the appomtment ofthe petitioners was purely adhoc, there is no illegality in the order. The petition dismissed summarily." 7. Even otherwise, this is not in dispute fhat the appointment ofthe petitioners was purely temporary and not in accordance wilh tfae constitutional scheme of employment. The petitioners have failed to establish that there was an open invitation calling upon fhe eligible candidates to participate in the selection and thereafter, appointineiits were made. The appointment order is very clear wherein it is clearly indicated fhat the appointment is purely temporary till properiy qualified persons as Revenue Chaimnen are ^jf \~7lf x ^ ^ ^ •:^-SS^' ^y: l:'^-,<a^' Ainit available. Mere continuation on tfae post on the strengtfa of stay order granted by the Court or otherwise does not confer any right on the petitioners for regularization. 8. It is evident that the engagement ofthe petitioners was purely on temporary basis. The petitioners Were never appointed in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment. Thus, the petitioners have no legal right to regularisation or continuation of their services. (See State of Kamataka & Others v. Umadevi (3) & Others smd Officwl Liqwdator v. Dayanand and others^). 9. In light ofthe above, since the appointment ofthe petitioners itselfwas illegal, subsequent regularisation or passing of the examination, illegal appomtment cannot be made legal by any other subsequent act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India & Others^, observed as under: "34. It is not a case where appointment was irregular. If an appointment is irregular, the same can be regularised. The Court may not take serious note of an irregularity within the meanmg of the prov-isions offhe Act. But if an appointment is illegal, it is non est in the eye of tfae law, which renders Ifae appointment to be a nullity." 10. Thus, the impugned judgment and order is unexceptionable, warrants no interference. 11. ^)plying the well-settled principles of law to the facts ofthe case on hand and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed. No order astocosts. _—.^_._ Sd/- Satish K'.AgnUiotri Judge •::Sd^-.'';-'.'. ^.. Prashant Kumar Mishra ::Judge:;,: ^' i''i . '(2006)4SCC1 2<200S)10SCC1 ^(2007)4SCC54