Chattisgarh High Court
Somendra Pratap Singh vs ) The State Of M.P on 26 February, 2008
Author: Satish K. Agnihotri
Bench: Satish K. Agnihotri
HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Writ Petitison (S) No. 1347 of 2005
Somendra Pratap Singh
...Petitioners
Versus
1) The State of M.P
2) The Commissioner
3) The Additional Director
4) The Principal
! Shri P. Diwakar with Shri P.K.Bhaduri ...Respondents
^ Shri Satish Gupta Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J Dated:26/02/2008 : Judgment ORAL ORDER (Passed on 26th February, 2008) The petitioner was appointed as Laboratory Technician on 10-1-1991 (Annexure A/1) on a fixed pay scale of Rs.1,200/- per month purely on temporary basis for a period of 89 days, and thereafter, his appointment was continued till the services of the petitioner were dis-engaged in the light of the policy decision of the State Government taken in November, 1999 as referred in the return. In O.A.No.722 of 2000 (Somendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others) was filed by the petitioner, the termination order dated 7-2-2000 (Annexure A/22) was under challenge. It is difficult to come to a conclusion asto what is the date of termination/dis-engagement of the services of the petitioner.
2) Be that as it may, the petitioner was initially appointed as Laboratory Technician for a period of 89 days and thereafter this period continued, by various orders passed time and again for 89 days till the date of his dis- engagerment from services. The present petition has been filed seeking a writ/direction to regularize the services of the petitioner.
3) On the issue of termination, M.P. Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, in O.A.No.722/2000 filed by the petitioner, passed the following order:
"In view of the above position, it is directed that the case of the applicant shall be re-examined in the light of the said circular dated 14-2-2000 amd subsequent circular of the Government on the subject and thereafter a fresh order shall be passed by the respondent No.3. Till the case of the case of the applicant is re-examined as directed above, the operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed.
The applicant shall be at liberty to approach the Tribunal again in case he is again aggrieved by the order that may be issued after re-examintion of his case.
This application stands disposed off with the aforesaid direction".
4) The present petition filed on 4-4-1996 is not in continuation of the subsequent order dated 22-3-2000 (Annexure R/2) passed by the Tribunal. Since the appointment of the petitioner is not in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment and is not in accordance with law, the petitioner has not acquired any right to re- appointment continuation or reinstatement in service.
5) The constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi & others ( (2006) 4 SCC1) has laid down clear enunciation of law which was followed later on in various decisions by the Supreme Court.
6) In the case of Secretary, Sate of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi & others (supra) the Supreme Court observed as unde:
"Thus it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the rule 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 need to comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, 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 relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee..."
7) In the light of the above, the petitioner cannot claim any regularization or reinstatement in service on the basis of his appointment, which was temporary and not in accordance with law, dehors constitutional scheme of employment.
8) Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
JUDGE