1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1884 of 2017 1 - Seevan Das Sahu, S/o Nirbhay Das Sahu, Aged About 28 Years Caste OBC, R/o Village Iraikala, Post Vijatala, P. S. Ghumka, Tehsil And Revenue District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Agriculture, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, (C.G.) 2 - The Directorate Of Horticulture, Secretariat, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The State Mission Director, State Horticulture Mission, G. E. Road, Near Telibandha Railway Crossing, Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Director, Call Me Service, C- 101/5, Tagore Nagar, Raipur, (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate. For State/Respondents : Shri Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer. Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Order on Board 11/03/2025 1. By virtue of this petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 31/12/2016 (Annexure P/1) issued by the Assistant Director (Horticulture), District Korba (C.G.), whereby the employees, who were engaged for the work of Field Consultant NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Digitally signed by NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Date: 2025.03.12 14:31:36 +0530 2 (including the present petitioner) under the National Horticulture Scheme has been removed. The petitioner has questioned further the order dated 30/12/2016 (part of Annexure P/1), which was issued by the Respondent No.3 -Mission Director, State Horticulture Mission, whereby the said authority intimating the petitioner that due to less amount of allotment under the National Horticulture Scheme, the salary/honorarium to the engaged employee could not have been made and therefore, services of as many as 74 Field Consultants, like the petitioner, have been terminated. 2. From perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner has not been engaged directly and/or appointed by the respondent/State on contractual basis on the post of Field Consultant under the National Horticulture Scheme, but, in fact, the petitioner was found to be engaged as Field Consultant, through the placement agency, known as “Call Me Services” (Respondent No.4 herein), therefore, the petitioner does not deserve for any relief as claimed herein. 3. It is seen further that the National Horticulture Scheme is a Central Government Sponsored Scheme and the same is being run by the State Government on the basis of fund allotment by the Central Government, Department of Agriculture and Co-operation and for running the said Scheme, an agreement was executed between the Respondent No.3 and the Respondent No.4-Call Me Services, Raipur for providing various faculty/manpower on various posts including the post of Field Consultant. In view of the alleged agreement, the said Call Me Services, Raipur, has provided services of the petitioner and others’ for the work of Field Consultant under the National Horticulture 3 Scheme. The alleged agreement (Annexure R/1) executed between the Respondent No.3 –Mission Director, State Horticulture Mission and the Respondent No.4 –The Director, Call Me Services on 27/02/2012 is relevant to be noted, particularly clause ‘h’ of the “Service Conditions”, which reads as under :- “3. Service Conditions a. ...…xxx ………xxxxx…... b. ..…xxx ………xxxxx…... c. ..…xxx ………xxxxx…... d. ..…xxx ………xxxxx…... e. ..…xxx ………xxxxx…... f. ..…xxx ………xxxxx…... g. ..…xxx ………xxxxx…... h. The employees thus selected or hired under the project shall be the employees of the Placement Agency and not the staff of the Mission or Directorate in any form.” 4. From perusal of the aforesaid clause, it is, thus, evident that the employees including the petitioner, who have been selected or hired under the project, shall be the employees of the Placement Agency and not the staff of the Mission or Directorate in any form. That apart, vide letter dated 01/08/2006 (Annexure R/2) issued by the Joint Secretary, Government of India, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation addressed to the Secretary, Department of Horticulture, State of Chhattisgarh, would show that the Field Consultants should be strictly through the Placement Agency and not by the Department/Corporation/Agency or University. It is, thus, evident that 4 the present petitioner was engaged/hired through the said Placement Agency i.e. the Respondent No.4 and not by the State Government and, his engagement was purely temporary in nature and, that too not directly engaged by the respondent/State. 5. In view of the aforesaid background, I do not find any infirmity in the orders impugned (Annexure P-1) as passed by the concerned respondent authority, so as to call for any interference in this petition. 6. The petition being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE Kamde