^ AF/^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER RESR3NDENTS WRIT PETITION (S) N0.3097 OF 2005 Basant Kumar Sahu, aged 31 years, S/o Sri Sukhanandanlal Sahu, village Sattipara. Post OfRce Ghutkoo, Via Ganiyari, District Bilaspur. Versus 1. The State of Madhya Pradesh, the Principal Secretary, Dopartment of Highor Education Ministry, Secretariate, Bhopal 2. The Commissioner, Directorate pf Higher Education, Satpuda Bhavan, 5th Floor, Bhopal (MP). 3. The Additional Director, Higher Education, Raipur-Bastar Division, ScienGe College Campus, Raipur. 4. The Principal, Government Naveen Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Purani Basti, Raipur. Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:" Shri Ashish Shrtvastava. counsel for the petitjoner. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia. Dy. Govt. Advocate forthe State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 3ro day of March, 2009) I.A.No.9195/2006. application for taking documents on record, is ordered, as prayed for. Wifh the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2) Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed for a period of 89 days and thereafter by order dated 13-3-1992 (Annexure - A/13) he was granted regular pay scale and, as such, he was regularized. The services of the petitioner. after having been regularized, have fc^en removed by an order in the year 1999. 3) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. While granting regular pay scale it was made clear that the appointment was purely temporary. V:^ —2-" Grant of regular pay does notamount to regularisation as is evident from the order dated 13-3-1992 (Annexure - A/13) itself. 4) Be that as it may, the initial appointment and thereafter grating regular pay scale to the petitioner was not in accordance with the constitutional scheme ofemployment. 5) The Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others4, observed in para 47 as under: "47. When a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognised by the relevant rules or procedure. he is aware ofthe consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual In nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post when an appoirrtment to the post could be made only by following a proper procoduro for solection and in cases concerned, in consultation wlth the Public Service Commission. Therefore. the theory of legitimate oxpectation cannot bo successfully advanced by temporary. contractual or casual employees. It cannot also be held that the State has held out any promise while engaging these persons either to continue them where they are or to make them permanent. The State cannot constitutionally make such a promise. It is also obvious tfiat the theory cannot be invoked to seek a positive relief of being made permanent in the post." 6) In Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.5, the Supreme Court observed as under : "34. Thus, it is well settled that there is no right vested in any daily-wager to seek regularisation. Regularisatlon can only t>e done in accordance with the rules and not dehors th®rulos. 35. In Surinder Singh Jamwal (Dr.) v. Stats of J & K\i was held that ad hoc appointmont does not give any right for regularization as regularization is governed by the statutory rules." 7) The observations made in Umadevi & Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (supra), with approval. the Supreme Court in OfRcial Liquidator vs. Dayanand and Others , has further explained 4 (2006) 4 SCC 1 5 (2007) 1 SCC 408 6 (2008)103cci Gowri about the rights of the daily wagers and regularization. Para 70 reads as under: 70. The shjft in the Court's approach became more prominent in A. Umarani v. Coop. Societies, decided by a three-Judge Bench. whorein it was held that the Stete cannot invoke Article 162 of the Constitution for regularisation of the appointments made in violation of the mandatory statutory provisions." 8) Applying the well settled principles of the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the facts ofthe present case. the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Appointment of the petitioner was not on open jnvjtation to all the eligible candidates as required under the provisions of Artictes 14 & 16 ofthe Constitution of India. The petitioner was appointed on the basis of daily wages for 89 days and the appointment continued one after another. Thus. the appointment of the petitioner cannot be held as legal and in accordance with law. 9) In view ofthe foregoing, the petition is liabte to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge