Pratap Kumar Ray, J. - (1.) :- In the instant case, it is the grievance of the petitioner that he being a casual appointee and working for so many years in the school in question though acquired a right for regularisation of service, but without caring for such the school authority proceeded with the selection process for appointment in a post which has been recently advertised. It is the grievance of the writ petitioner that the petitioner is qualified to be Assistant Teacher in Social Science subject, that is history and Geography. In the writ application the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : "(a) A Writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus do issue directing the concerned respondents to stop forthwith the impugned selection procedure of the Assistant Teacher in Physics in the said St. Peter's High School purportedly initiated on the basis of advertisement made in the All India Appointment Gazette dated 15.1.2003; (b) A Writ of and/ or in the nature of Mandamus do issue directing the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to declare vacancy in the post of Assistant Teacher in History and Geography instead of Physics as they illegally converted the said vacancy; (c) A Writ of and/ or in the nature of Mandamus do issue directing the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to show cause as to why the impugned conversion of General Category post to reserved category for Scheduled Caste Scheduled Tribe should not be set aside and further change of subject of retired teacher for giving new appointment why should not be set aside; (d) A Writ of and/ or in the nature of Mandamus do issue directing the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to sponsor the name of the petitioner to the respondent No. 7 in terms of the representation of the petitioner for regularisation of his service and for according approval for his absorption in the actual vacant post of Assistant Teacher in History and Geography which lying vacant due to retirement of Gokul Bhattacharya."
(2.) The concerned vacancy relates to Science subject, that is Physics and the petitioner is not at all eligible for consideration of his candidature for the said post. The petitioner cannot oppose the selection process for appointment of Assistant Teacher in Science group. Furthermore, as a casual appointee for certain period having appointment letter through the Managing Committee, but not through any selection process in terms of the recruitment rule as applicable, the petitioner had no legal right to oppose any appointment in the school following the recruitment procedure. It is a settled law that a casual appointee appointed without following any recruitment rule has no locus standi and/ or legal right to claim regularisation as a permanent appointee in the school in question unless and until a statuary rule provides such scope or benefit for upgradation of the rank of a casual appointee, to the rank of a permanent appointee. Reliance may be placed to the judgment in the case of State of M.P. v. Dharam Vir, reported in (1998) 6 SCC 165. In the said judgment, the Apex Court sconsidered at length the aspect of service jurisprudence by considering the status of different employment, namely adhoc, temporary, casual for the purpose of their absorption as permanent appointee. While dealing with the matter, the Apex Court held that status in the employment is a main factor which is to be considered at the time of regularisation of issue. It has been further held that adhoc, temporary and or causal appointees cannot claim a change of their status automatically, but it requires to have a processing through a rule, and in absence of such, such types of appointees are not eligible to claim permanent status. In the instant case, identical situation has cropped up. The petitioner admittedly a casual appointee, and under the service jurisprudence a causal appointee has no legal right to be elevated automatically as a permanent appointee unless rules provides such. Learned Advocate of the petitioner failed to satisfy this court by showing any rule and/ or circular letter as would help the petitioner such elevation from casual appointee to permanent appointee, and that too, without following the recruitment procedure. However, learned Advocate for the petitioner refers to some views of this High Court as passed earlier in several judgments regularising the service and further teamed Advocate of the petitioner has contended that in the earlier writ application as pending praying regularisation of service with reference to a particular vacancy, the respondents, school authorities had taken a stand that the post was reserved for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, but ultimately once appointment in that post was made and the appointee left the service, the same vacancy has been declared as vacancy for Science group by declaring the same as of general category. Even if it is assumed for argument that the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is right and justified on factual matrix, but still then the petitioner cannot get any relief in this writ proceeding because the petitioner has no legal right for any post either it is of Social Science group or of Science group. Once a person has no legal right to claim any post by way of his position as a casual appointee even if any wrong has been committed by the school authority by declaring certain vacancy contrary to the roster rule, the petitioner, cannot assail the same. In that view of the matter, this court feels that the petitioner has no locus standi to move this writ application assailing the decision of the Managing Committee. The school authority is directed to proceed with the appointment in the Science group as the students are suffering.
(3.) Accordingly, the writ application stands dismissed. Petition dismissed. ;