Dismissed

Dwarika Prasad v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC19 Mar 2012WA/119/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the dismissal of a writ petition wherein a daily wager petitioner contested the cancellation of his appointment on grounds of malafide. The Court held that the appointment was de hors the constitutional scheme and the petitioner had no right to regularization, dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed summarily without infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.

Dwarika Prasad Vs State of Chhattisgarh… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

,119/201;

¶3

•HRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA & HQN'BLE SHRI RADHE SHYAM SHARMA. JJ.

¶4

Dwarika Prasad Aged about 33 years, S/o Chamar Singh Markam R/o Gram- Navapara (Sela) Post & Tehsil- Pali, District Korba (CG) State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Schedule Caste & Scheduie Tribe Deve!opment Department, DKS Bhawan, ^iantralaya, Raipur (CG)

¶5

2 Collector, Korba (CG) 3 Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Weifare Department, Korba (CG) Iqck Education Officer, PondiUprQda, District Korba (CG)

¶6

Shri Mateen Siddique,Advocateforthe appellant. Shri U.N.S. Deo, Government Advocate for the State/ respondents on advance copy.

¶7

¶8

"% ,Sy-^^*!1 /^''•SfSWh •^saiaiaag; '!9 g B s .-•^'

¶9

7 WA 119/2012

¶10

Heard on admisslon.

¶11

This appeal is directed against 1 ;th January,2012, passed in W.P.(S.) No.253/2012. By the impugned order, the writ petition filed by the appeliant/petitioner, challengins the vaiidity of order dated 20.10.2011 (Annexure P/1 in the writ petition), whereby, the appointment ofthe appeliant/petitioner forthe period of 89 days was cancelied by the concerned authority, was dismissed by the writ Court.

¶12

The appellant was appointed on daily wages basis at ColJectorate rate for a period of 89 days. The appointment was continued on the basis of several subsequent orders passed for 89 days. It was contended before the writ Court that the appeliant was discontinued on the ground Shat he approached the High Court for payment^{ofwages,whichwas} granted^{andasaconsequence} exercising malafide powers, the services of the appellant were discontinued by the impugned order. The wrlt Court held that i{ was nof the case of the appellant that the appointment was rnade on the -basis of open invitation through a selection process. The writ Court further found that the allegations of malafide on the ground that the appellant has approached the High Court for grant of wages, which was allowed, was unfounded. The writ Court held that there was no.

% .'^, iif

WA 119/2012

reason to infer that the action of discontinuance of the appellant was taken on the basis of order passed le High Court. The appointment of the appellant was on daily wages basis for 89 days without inviting applications from all the simiiarly situated persons, therefore, the appellant did not acquire any right on the post as the appointment itself was vioiative of Articte 14 of the Constitution of Id.

¶17

The v/rit Court, referring to the decisions rendered in the matters of Secretary, State of Kamataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, Indian Drugs & PharmaceuQcals Ltd. Vs. Worifmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 2007 (1) SCC 408 and Offidal Liquidator Vs. Dayanand and Others (2008) 10 SCC (1), further hsld that a daily v/ager cannot claim reguiarization continuance or reinstatement in service on the )asis of appointment, which was temporary and not in accordance with law and de hors the constltutional scheme of employment. The writ Court, therefore, dismissed the writ petition.

¶18

ShrE Siddique, learned counsel for the appeilant raises almost similar points, which were raised before the writ Court. He submits that since the appeliant and other similarly situated persons reached to- the High Court, claiming their w'ages, the order of their discontinuance has been passed malafidely.

¶19

¶20

¶21

's ••!-Sf{^. <':• 1-'"" ^

¶22

WA 119/2012

¶23

We have gone through the contents of the writ petition, appeal and the documents annexed thereto. No ground of malafide is unfolded on the material placed either before the writ Court or this Court.

¶24

Admittedly, the appellant was a daily wager on Collectorate rate. The appointment of the appeilant was de hors the Constitutional scheme of employment, as no advertisement was published for such appointment and as such, there was no open competition. On due consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and She grounds taken in the writ petition as also in the writ appeal, we do not find any infirmlty or illegality in the impugned order passed by the writ Court.

¶25

The writ appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is

¶26

hereby dismlssed summarily.

¶27

Sd/Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge

¶28

Sd/u Radhe Shyam Sharma Judge

¶29

sunfta

Dwarika Prasad v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dwarika Prasad v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxmi Prasad and Another Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shiv Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Sai Construction Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Sheikh Abdul Sadique Vs State of C.G. and Ors.

Sheetal Lalwani and Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt. Anita Kosariya Vs State of C.G. and Ors.