Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 295 (CHH)

HEMANGI R. BHURE v. STATE OF M. P. (NOW C. G. )

2009-11-12

SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI

body2009
ORAL ORDER Heard. 1. The petitioner, by this petition, seeks a direction to the respondents/ State to create additional post of Lecturer, Costume Design and Dress Making in Women's Govt. Polytechnic, Raipur and to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization. In alternative, the petitioner prays that the select list (Annexure A/12) may be quashed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a graduate in Advance Textile and Dress Making. She was appointed as part time Lecturer in Government Women's Polytechnic College, Raipur by order dated 28.9.1993 (Annexure Al8). Pursuant to the advertisement issued 23.12.1994 the petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer, Costume Design and Dress Making in Government Women's Polytechnic, Raipur. The interview was held on 24.4.1995 but the petitioner was not called for the interview. On 4.5.1995 a select list (Annexure All 2) was published in Rozgar Aur Nirman. Thus, the petitioner has filed this petition for her regularization on the post where she is working as part time Lecturer or for quashing of the select list (Annexure AlI2), published on 4.5.1995. 3. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the documents appended thereto, it is apparent that the engagement of the petitioner was as part-time Lecturer, on the basis of per period wages, until further orders. She was never appointed in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment. The nature of appointment of the petitioner appears to be purely as part time employee, on temporary basis. The same was not done in accordance with rules and as such the petitioner does not acquire any right to the post. It is well settled principle of law by a catena of decisions that the employee appointed de-hors the constitutional scheme of employment and not in accordance with law, has no right to continuation, reinstatement or regularization in service. This is also not the case of the petitioner that she was legally appointed, in accordance with law. It is clearly established that the appointment of the petitioner was not in accordance with law. (See Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others-1, Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand and others-2) 1. 2006(4) SCC 1 2. 2008(10) SCC 1 4. It is clearly established that the appointment of the petitioner was not in accordance with law. (See Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others-1, Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand and others-2) 1. 2006(4) SCC 1 2. 2008(10) SCC 1 4. The relief claimed by the petitioner to the extent of grant of appointment by creating a supernumerary post, on the basis of her participation in the selection process for the post of Lecturer, Costume Design and Dress Making in Women's Govt. Polytechnic, Raipur, has no basis. It is well settled that mere participation in the selection process does not confer any right on the candidate. On scrutiny the petitioner was not found suitable for calling for the interview and as such, the petitioner does not acquire any right. Even otherwise the petitioner is not entitled to any relief after a period of about 14 years. At this stage, no direction can be issued to create a supernumerary post. 5. This Court in Rajesh Kumar Dewangan Vs. The Life Insurance Corporation of India & others3 held that "the petitioner does not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed on the post of Assistant pursuant to his selection" and that "no direction can be given to issue appointment letter to the petitioner though he has come out successful in the selection process." 6. Applying the well settled principles of law, as stated above, to the facts of the present case, wherein the petitioner was engaged purely on temporary basis as part-time Lecturer, the petitioner has no right to the post. Thus, no direction can be issued to the respondents for regularization or reinstatement of the petitioner in service. 7. In view of the foregoing, there is no merit in this petition. The petition is I dismissed, accordingly. Petition Dismissed.