SANT RAM AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were appointed as daily rated employees on contingency fund in the year 1978. It is admitted case of the petitioners that the appointment of the petitioners was not in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment or under any rules framed under proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution of India inviting applications from all the eligible candidates. In the present case, the petitioners seek a writ/direction to the respondents to regularise services of the petitioners with effect from 1-1-1984.

(2.) The Supreme Court, while dealing with the matters of daily wagers, ad hoc employees, probationers, temporary or contractual employees, not appointed following the procedure laid down under Articles 14, 16 and 309 of the Constitution of India, held that such appointments de hors the constitutional scheme amounts to back door entry in the matter of public employment.

(3.) The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 , has laid down clear enunciation of law which was followed later on in various decisions by the Supreme Court. Some are Accounts Officer (A and I), APSRTC and others Vs. P. Chandra Sekhara Rao and others, (2006) 7 SCC 488 and Surinder Prasad Tiwari Vs. U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and others, (2006) 7 SCC 684.