1N THE HIGH (EMERT OF MADE—NA §ULPDEJI AT JPBALWUR Miscmxetition No. KLof M 199 3 \ : 'Ku- EafikunniSa aged about 32 years 'daughter of Shri \‘n idur Rehm an ‘R/ o Kh ara ia fa i D istrict Raigarh, My. WET IT IONEIX VerSus x ‘ §§S§O‘1\H)ENTS §g z 1n Nag ar Eialik a w arrishad Kh arsiav thrcug’n its Chief uncipal Officer, Tah . Khars ia D isti Raig arh, MLwn 2- Head‘hiristress, EETHIQN UNDER AEHCLES 226 & 221 OF THE CONSTmtTmN G1: IND matax Mi . Maanlal Dazi Bha, Nagar Paiika B al‘ Mndir, Karsia, Distritt Raigary NLP. g i a h h 2Q HIGH COURT OF CHHAI IISGARH : BILASPUR W WRIT PETlTlON NO.2186 OF 1993 (Writ Petition under Artictes 226 & 227 of the Constitution of india) Single Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri H.S. Patel, counseifor the petitioner. None for the respondents, despite service of notice. ORDER (QRAL) (Passed on this 16‘" day of December, 2009) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent~ authorities to regularize the services of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher in the school of respondent No.1 from 1-12-1 986. 2. Learned counsel appearing forthe petitioner submits that the petitioner was working in the respondent department as Assistant Teacher on deity wages basis since 1986, but tiii» date her services have not been reguiarized in spite of the fact that the petitioner has aiready spent her major. portion of youth in the services of the respondents. The petitioner belongs toGenerai category. The persons belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduied Tribe categories have been regularized by the respondent authorities on the post of Assistant Teacher, who were much junior to the petitioner. The respondent authorities have also issued instructions for regularization of the empioyees working on daily wages basis, even then also, the case of the petitioner has not been considered. Thus, this petition. ,e- > 3. l have heard leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused \s .\ x \\ the pleadings and documents appended thereto. PETITIONER Ku. Ratikunnisa RESPONDENTS Versus Nagar Paiika Parishad, Kharsia ;,7’Vf3 6 x it is evident that the petitioner was not appointed in accordance wiih the constitutional scheme of empioyment, as there was no ' advertisement inviting applications from similarly situated candidates and no selection process was undertaken before appointment. The appointment of the petitioner was purely on temporary basis. Be that as it may, a temporary employeeidaily wager cannot ctaim regularization, continuance or reinstatement in service on the basis of appointment, which was temporary and not in accordance with law and de hors the constitutional scheme of employment. {See Secretary, State of Kamateka and Others vs. Umadevi (3) and Others’, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticais Ltd. v. Workman, Indian Drugs & Phernraoeuéicals Ltd.2, Oflicial Liquidator v. Dayenend and emers3 and State of Panjab and Others v. sun?! Singh and Others"). ~ The contention of the petitioner that the authorities directed to regularize the services of the employees working on temporary basis is concerned, the same is noticed to be. rejected, as in Umadevr' (supra), the Supreme Court observed as under: . “Thus, it is ciear that adherence to the rule of " equality in public employment is a basic feature of ' our Constitution and since the ruie of law is the core of our Constitution, a court would certainly be * disabled from passing an order upholding a violation ' .. of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the ‘ w need to comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article ,16 ‘of the Constitution. The‘refore,’ 1 (zoos) 4 scc 1 w 2 2007 (1) scc 408 3 (2003) 10 scc 1 4 (200‘s) 9 sec 514 consistent with the scheme for public employment, this Court while laying down the law. has necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in terms of the retevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same , would not confer any right on the appointee." ’The above ratio laid down by me Supreme Court has been reiterated by this Court in Ashwani Kumar Verma & omers v. Siate af Ghhartigarh & Ancihef and somendra Pratap Singh u The State of MP. & otherss. Against the order passed in somendre Pratap Singh (supra). the petitionerlherein preferred a writ appeal being W.A. (PR) No. 2077/2008, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 29.04.2008 affirming the order passed by the Single Bench. Thereagainst, the matter was taken upto the Supreme Court by tiling Special Leave Petition being S.L.P.(C) No. 27190/2008 (Somendra Pratep Singh v, State of Chhettisgam & Others), which was also dismissed by the Supreme Court amrming the View taken by this Court, vide its order dated 23.03.2009. This Court in Senjey Patil v. state of Chham‘sgam & Another], while dealing with similar issue observed that “if the State Government has regularized some of (he daily wagers, not appointed in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment, this Court cannot issue a positive direction to legalise the ii‘egal appdntment on the gmund that certain illegal appointments have been legalized/regularized by the employer: ln this context, the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of indie“, observed as under: "34 It is not a case where appointment was irregular if an appointment is irregular the ’..same can be regulansed The Court may not : take serious note of an irregularity Within the meaning of the provisions of the Act. But if an appointment is illegal, it is non est in the eye of ' WP (S) No 174: of £009 decided on 28—42009 W P (S) No 1347 of 2005 decided on 26-2 2008 7 WP (S) No 5845 of 2009 decided on 9 10 2009 3 (2007) 4 SCC 54 ,_ 2, 2i, h ~2.__-7-4 Gowri iaw, which renders the appointment.to be a i? nullity. " Further, in Stak of Punjab & anafher v. Sua'it Singh & Othersg the Supreme Court reafmmed the above ratio in the following terms : "39. We wouid, however, before parting make an observation that the submission of the learned counsel that only because some juniors have get the benefit, the same by iSeif cannot be a ground for extending the same benefit to the respondents herein. it is now well known that the equality oiause contained in Article 14 should be invoked only where the parties are similarly situated and where orders lt passed has a positive in their favour concept." are legal and not illegai. 11. For the reasons stated hereinabove and appiying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case wherein the petitioner was appointed purely on daily wages basis, thus, she is not entitled to any reiief. 12. in‘ the resuit, the writ petition is dismissed No order asto costs. Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 9 (2009) 9 soc 514