1 - Director, National Institute Of Technology (NIT) Raipur Ge Road Raipur, District- Raipur v. 1 - Neelima Yadav D/o
Case Details
1 SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.07.11 10:43:04 +0530 2025:CGHC:31840-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 458 of 2025 1 - Director, National Institute Of Technology (NIT) Raipur Ge Road Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Registrar National Institute Of Technology Raipur, GE Road Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Neelima Yadav D/o Shri Kunjbihari Yadav Aged About 34 Years Occupation Sports Instructor Sports Department, NIT, Raipur, (C.G.), District Raipur (C.G.) R/o Mahavir Nagar LIG-6, Shiv Temple, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Petitioner) 2 - Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Human Resource Development Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi (Respondent) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Appellants For Respondent No.1 For Respondent No.2/ UOI
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate : Ms. Deepali Pandey, Advocate : Ms. Anmol Sharma, CGC 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge
Decision
Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 10.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Ms. Deepali Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Ms. Anmol Sharma, learned Central Govt. Counsel for respondent No.2/ UOI. 2. The present writ appeal is directed against the order dated 19.02.2025 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No.6234/2023 & other connected matter, whereby the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 / writ petitioner was allowed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that the issue involved in this writ appeal has already been considered and decided by this Court vide judgment dated 25.06.2025 in WA No.397 of 2025, whereby the Division Bench of this Court has held as under:- “15. The case of the writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge was that despite continuing on daily wages for a very long time, the services of the writ petitioners was not regularised and as such, she had prayed for regularisation of her services. It is an admitted position that the writ petitioner was not appointed after due notification of the advertisement on any clear sanctioned vacant post but she was appointed on daily wages basis. When the initial induction of the writ petitioner in the service was on 3 daily wages basis and the conditions of the services itself provided that such employees could be removed at any point of time, then there was no occasion for the learned Single Judge to take a lenient view and order regularisation of their services. Merely because the writ petitioner worked for a long period of about 9 years. The writ petitioner she joined as daily wager on 29.10.2014, without any designation, without any advertisement or selection process and not appointed against any sanctioned or vacant post therefore her services cannot be regularized. 16. In Uma Devi (supra) itself, paragraphs 52, 53 and 54 are relevant, which reads as under: “52. Normally, what is sought for by such temporary employees when they approach the court, is the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the employer, the State or its instrumentalities, to absorb them in permanent service or to allow them to continue. In this context, the question arises whether a mandamus could be issued in favour of such persons. At this juncture, it will be proper to refer to the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur v. The Governing Body of the Nalanda College [(1962) Supp. 2 SCR 144]. That case arose out of a refusal to promote the writ petitioner therein as the Principal of a college. This Court held that in order that a mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that the statute imposes a legal duty on the authority and the aggrieved party had a legal 4 right under the statute or rule to enforce it. This classical position continues and a mandamus could not be issued in favour of the employees directing the government to make them permanent since the employees cannot show that they have an enforceable legal right to be permanently absorbed or that the State has a legal duty to make them permanent. 44. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa (supra), R.N. Nanjundappa (supra), and B.N. Nagarajan (supra), and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or 5 daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by-passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme. 45. It is also clarified that those decisions which run counter to the principle settled in this decision, or in which directions running counter to what we have held herein, will stand denuded of their status as precedents.” 17. Recently, the Apex Court, in Vibhuti Shankar Pandey v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others {(2023) 3 SCC 639}, while dealing with a similar issue wherein the appellant was appointed on daily rated basis in the Water Resources Department, had sought regularisation on the post of Supervisor/Time Keeper. The Apex Court, relying on its earlier decision rendered in Uma Devi (supra), dismissed the appeal holding that the appointment was not made by the competent authority and further the appointment was not made on a sanctioned post. 18. When the writ petitioner never applied against a vacant sanctioned post, nor participated in any competitive examination, then allowing regularisation of her services would amount to granting back door entry. Further, the writ 6 petitioner was granted one time age relaxation for competing in the selection process of the appellant- Institute in respect to the advertisement dated 13.07.2023 wherein two contractual employees were selected and appointed as regular employees. It is the contention of the appellants itself that the appointment on daily wages were made without following any selection process or issuance of any advertisement against any sanctioned post and as such, the order passed by the learned Single Judge granting regularisation in service, is unjust and improper and as such, the order dated 19.02.2025 passed in WPS No. 6326/2023, so far it relates to the regularisation of writ petitioner-Sandhya Mahadik, who was initially appointed on daily wages basis is set aside, to that extent. 19. Resultantly, this appeal stands allowed and WPS No. 6326/2023, is dismissed.” 4. In view of above, the present writ appeal is allowed in terms of the order passed by this Court in WA No. 397 of 2025. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice S.Bhilwar/ Jyoti