Respondents vs Village & Post Ghutku, Tahsil Takhatpur,

Ashwani Kuxnar Venna, aged about 38 years, S/o Shri Hari Bhajan. Verma, R/o ViUage & Post Gariyaband, District Raipur (C.G.) Ctoverdhan Prasad. Kosle, aged about 22 years, S/o Shri Axijor Das Kosle, R/o ViUage keshla Ward No. 14, N^ar Panchayat Bilha, TahsU Bilha, District BUaspur (C.G.) Prashant Kuinar DabU, aged about 35 years,S/o Shri Krishiia Kumar DabU, R/o Post Gariaband District Raipur (C.G.) Mauoj Kuinar Janardaa, aged about 31 years, S/o Shri Dhehu-am, Village Kidhari, P.0. Aarang, Distnct Raipur (C.G.) Narhari Ram. Patel, aged about 31 years, S/o Shri Moti Lal Patel, R/o ViUage Purena, Post Ravigram, Thana Telibandha, District Raipur (C.G.) Rajesh KuBiar Siugh, aged about 37 years, S/o Shri Yashwant Kuiaar Sin.gh, VUlage & Post Mulmula, Tahsil Akaltara, District Bilaspur(C.G.) Yashwaut Kuaiar Nayak, aged about 25 years, S/o Shn Tarachand Nayak, Station Road Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) Jiwan Lal Rajak, aged about 32 years, S/o Shri Shyam Lal Rajak, ViUage & Post Lachliaupur, Distnct Raipur (C.G.) Salyendra Kumar Mehra, aged about 27 years, S/o Shri Suman Lal, R/o Imgation Colony, JagdaUa Distnct .Janjgir Champa (C.G.) Dwarika Singh Dhruv, aged about 37 years, S/o Shri Hirderam Dhruv, R/o ViUage & Post Dahi, District Dhamtari (C.G.) Parikshit Kumar Shrivas, aged about 23 years, S/o Shri Shyam Lal Shrivas, R/o Post Kotetara, Tahsil Village Datod, JaijaLpur, Disfaict Jaujgu- Chanipa (C.G.) Chhatrapal Chaadrakar, aged about 24 Lal S/o years, ViUage & Post Chaadrakar, Ganyabaad, District Raipur (C.G.) Shashi Bhushan Siagh Sidar, scged about 40 years, S/o Shri Bharat Lal Sidar, R/o Vfllage Daaabhata, TahsU Matkharoda, District Janjgir Chainpa (C.G.) Bhekh Lal Ratre, aged about 36 years, S/o Shri Dhaniram Ratre, R/o ViUage Saradeeh, Post Belsonda, District Mahasaniuiida (C.G.) Shri Chamaa Late R/o •2-

16. Respondents Versus 1.

2. Ramayan Prasad Yadav, aged about 25 years, S/o Shri Nand Kumar Yadav, R/o Village & Post Ghutku, Tahsil Takhatpur, District BUaspur (C.G.) Aruil Kumar Dewangan, aged about 26 years, S/o Shri Ayodhya Prasad Dewangan, R/o Village & Post Viuayakpur, District Durg (C.G.) throi^h of Chliattisgarh, State Secretary, DepartBient of Man Power and PlanTiing D.K.S. Bhawan, Maatralaya, Raipur(C.G.) Trainiag Director, Directorate, Women Polytechiuc campus, Bauan Bazar, Raipur (C.G.) Einployment WRrTPETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OFJNDIA. (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Jiteudra PaU, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms Surdta Jain, Paael Lawyer for the respondents. ORDER (Passed on this 28th Day ofApril, 2009) The petitioners, by fhis petition, impugns the advertiseinent for recruitment on the (Aanexure P/1), inviting applications posts ofTramiag Officer Grade -III, on contoract basis, under various Industnal Training Institutes, run by the Directorate, and Manpower Employinent, Eruployinent aad Traiaing, Raipur. The case ofthe pedtioners is that they were recruited as Guest Lecturer/Spokesinau fhTough proper selection process, by iiivitmg applications fi-oiu fhe el^ible pensons. The Departinent of Teclmical Chhattisgarh issued uistructions (Annexure P/35) fhat the Guest Lecturers inay be appointed against fhe post ofTrFiining Of&cer when sanctioned posts are vacant. Further, they iiiay be paid remuneration accordiagly. Now, by fhe impugncd tlie proceeding has been advertisement initiated to fiU up such posts also on wtuch fhe petitioners have been working. (Aruuexure P/1) State Shri Jitendra Pali, petitioners subndts fhat fhe petitioners were appoiated on leamed counsel appearing for

3. T. contract basis, fhey are entitled to continue on contract basis till fhe appouitnient on regular basis is made. In support ofhis contention leamed counsel relies ou a decision of a fhree Hon'ble Judges Bench of Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Piara Singh and others1. Having heard leamed couiisel appearing for the parties and havit^ perused fhe docum.en.ts appended fhereto, apparent fhat the engagement of the petitioners was on daily wages, as part tune aud visiting lecturer for seasonal work. They were accordance wifh appoiuted scheme constitutional employment. The nature of appointnient of the petitioners appears to be purely on daily wages as part time visitiog lecturer, on temporary basis. The same was not done in accordance with rules and as such fhe petitioners do not acquire any right to the posts. It is weU settled principle of law by a catena of decisions fhat einployee appoiated de-hors the constitutional sclieine of einployinent and not in accordaiice with law, has no right to continuation, reinstateinent or regularizatiou ta service. TIiis is also not the case of fhe petitioners fhat they were legaUy appointed, ia accordance wifh law. It is clearly estabUshed fhat the appointinent of the petitioners was not ia accordance withi law. Iu Piara Singh (supra) the Supreuie Court ia para 46 observed that "aa ad hoc or teinporary einployee should not be replaced by aaother ad hoc or teinporary eiaployee; he niust be replaced only by a regulariy selected einployee. This is necessaiy to avoid arbitraiy action on fhe part of fhe appoiatuig aufhority."

6. The Supreiae Court, ia the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others2 observed ia para 47 as under: "47. When a person enters a texuporary eiuployment or gets engageinent as a contractual or casual worker aad the engagexaent is not based 011 a proper selection as recognized by the relevant rules or procedure, he is aware of the 1 (1992)48cc 118 • 2006 (4) SCC 1 .^•"~"T ';;""^:;.,. '^ /'^-^ "SSiiSS'!. •••^>.--»1 ^ in consultation with consequences of the appotntiuent beiiig temporary, casual or contractual iu nature. Such a person caruiot invoke the theoiy of legitunate expectation for beuig confirmed in. ttie post when aa appointinent to the post could be inade only by foUowing a proper procedure for selection and in cases concerued, Seivice Coimnission. Therefore, ftie theoiy of legitimate expectation caanot be successfuUy advaaced by teiaporaiy, contractual or casual exuployees. It cannot also be held that the State has held out any proinise while engaguig these persons either to continue fheni where they are or to niake them. permaaent. The State cannot constitutionally niake such a promise. It is also obvious that the theoiy cannot be invoked to seek a positive relief of beiug inade periiianent in the post." Public

7. The decision in. Piara Slngh (supra) came into consideration in Uniadevi (3) and others (supra), wherein a constitution Bench of Supreine Court observed that the directions ruiuung counter to the constitutioxial scherae of einploynient is no longer a good law. The observations ia fhis regard are as under : "54. is also clarified that those decisions which run counter to the principle settled ia this decision, or iu which directions running counter to what we have held herein, wffl stand denuded of their status as precedents." It Applyuig fhe weU settled principles of law, as stated above, to the facts of fhe present case, whereui the pedtioners were tinie lecturer, purely on engaged on daily wages as part the petitioners have no right to the post. temporary basis, Thus, no direction caa be issued to fhe respondents, restTaming thein froin takmg up the inatter for appoiatment of Training Officer Grade-III, pursuaat (Annexure P/l). In view of the foregoiag, fhere is no merit in fhis petition. The petitiou is disinissed, accordmgly. —- to fhe advertisenient Satish K. Agnihotri Judge

9. TtiaJajT