Satyendra Singh vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.

With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally.

The petitioner was initially appointed on 20-5-2005 (Annexure P-1) on temporary basis as Majdoor for a period of 30 days. Thereafter, the appointment of the petitioner continued on account of several orders passed for his engagement for 30 days, and in some cases for 89 days, on daily wages basis. The grievance of the petitioner is that on 23-11-2007 (Annexure P-23) the petitioner was appointed from 1-12-2007 to 31-12-2007, but this order was not given effect to as the petitioner was not appointed. Thus, this petition.

I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.

All the orders annexed herewith from Annexures P-1 to P-23 are not addressed to the petitioner or any other daily wages employee. These are the orders permitting engagement of certain employees for a period of 30 days or in some cases 89 days, to the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway Division, Bilaspur. It does not indicate that the petitioner alone or alongwith other persons were engaged as daily wagers to perform some work for a fixed period of 30 days or 89 days. On the basis of these orders, submission of the petitioner that the petitioner was engaged throughout, cannot be established. One certificate (Annexure P-24) has been submitted issued by the Sub Divisional Officer,. Public Works Department, mentioning that the petitioner was appointed on daily wages basis from 20-5-2005. There is no mention either with regard to continuation or discontinuation of the appointment.

Admittedly, the appointment of the petitioner is not in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment. There was no public notice or advertisement published inviting applications from all the similarly situated petitioners for the job. Thus, it is held that the appointment of the petitioner was de hors the constitutional scheme of appointment and not in accordance with law.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, has categorically held that appointment of daily wages, contract and temporary, if not in accordance with law and de hors the constitutional scheme of employment, is not a proper or legal appointment. The petitioner has not acquired any right to the post as his appointment was not in accordance with the constitutional scheme of appointment.

Recently, in the matter of U.P. Electricity Board v. Puran Chandra Pandey and Ors. AIR 2007 SCW 6904, the Supreme Court observed as under :

The learned Single Judge in his judgment dated 21-9-1998 held that there was no ground for discriminating between two sets of employees who are daily wagers, namely, (i) the original employees of the Electricity Board, and (ii) the employees of the Society, who subsequently became the employees of the Electricity Board when the Society was taken over by the Electricity Board. This view of the learned Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court.

...We have to read Uma Devi''s case (supra), in conformity with

Article 14 of the Constitution, and we cannot read it in a manner which will make it in conflict with Article 14. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any judgment, not even of the Supreme Court, can violate the Constitution.

In the matter of Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Workman, Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., , the Supreme Court observed as under:

Thus, it is well settled that there is no right vested in any daily-wager to seek regularisation. Regularisation can only be done in accordance with the rules and not de hors the rules. In E. Ramakrishnan v. State of Kerala, this Court held that there can be no regularisation de hors the rules. The same view was taken in Kishore (Dr.) v. State of Maharashtra, Union of India v. Bishamber Dutt. The direction issued by the Services Tribunal for regularizing the service of persons who had not been appointed on regular basis in accordance with the rules was set aside although the petitioner had been working regularly for a long time.

In Surinder Singh Jamwal (Dr.) v. State of J & K, it was held that ad hoc appointment does not give any right for regularisation as regularisation is governed by the statutory rules.

Further, in the matter of State of U.P. and Others Vs. Desh Raj, , the Supreme Court observed as under:

Whatever may be the import and purport of such regularisation rules, in view of the recent Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Secy., State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, it is now well settled that the appointments, if made in violation of the constitutional scheme of equality as enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, would be rendered illegal and, thus, void ab initio. No regularisation rules, therefore, could have been made by the State of Uttar Pradesh in derogation of the statutory or a constitutional scheme.

Applying the well settled principles of law as stated above to the facts of the case, the petitioner cannot claim any regularization or reinstatement in service on the basis of his appointment, which was temporary and not in accordance with the law and de hors the constitutional scheme of employment.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.