ALOK DUBEY Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, petition is heard finally. By this petition, the petitioners seek the following the reliefs :

(2.) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. Admittedly, the appointment of the petitioners was on contract basis for a period of one year. According to the petitioners, the petitioners have continued on service after completion of one year contract period. No order has been filed to indicate that there was any sanction or order for extension of time of one year contract period. Thus, it appears that the petitioners have continued after completion of one year without authority of law and, as such, the continuation may be held as illegal.

(3.) WHEN a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognized by the relevant rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper procedure for selection and in concerned cases, in consultation with the Public Service Commission. Therefore, the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary, contractual or casual employees, it cannot also be held that the State has held out any promise while engaging these persons either to continue them where they are or to make them permanent. The State cannot constitutionally make such a promise. It is also obvious that the theory cannot be invoked to seek a positive relief of being made permanent in the post.