1 Director, National Institute Of Technology Raipur, Ge Road Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 v. 1 Sanjay Kumar Deshmukh S/o
Case Details
JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.07.11 17:41:18 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:31842-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 461 of 2025 1 Director, National Institute Of Technology Raipur, Ge Road Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 Registrar National Institute Of Technology Raipur, Ge Road Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 Sanjay Kumar Deshmukh S/o Shri Keshaw Prasad Deshmukh Aged About 36 Years Occupation Technical Assistant (Contract), Physics Department Nit, Raipur, Chhattisgarh R/o H. N. 276, Near Opal School Jawahar Nagar Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh 2 Mahendra Kumar Verma S/o Lt. Shri Gopal Ram Verma Aged About 50 Years Occupation Assistant Grade Iv (Contract), Electrical Engineering Department Nit, Raipur, Chhattisgarh R/o Village Nardha, P.O. Nardha, P.S. Vidhan Sabha Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 Kush Kumar S/o Lt. Ghanshyam Soni Aged About 35 Years Occupation Laboratory Assistant (Contract), Electrical Department Nit, Raipur, Chhattisgarh R/o 17/24c Glaxi Chowk, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh 4 Santosh Kumar Dewangan S/o Shri Arjun Singh Dewangan Aged About 45 Years Occupation Laboratory Attendant (Contract), 2 Mechanical Workshop Department Nit, Raipur, Chhattisgarh R/o Azad Chowk Jhiriya Para Ruabandha Basti Bhilai Nagar, District Durg Chhattisgarh 5 Sachin Kumar Donode S/o Shri Krishna Rao Donode Aged About 35 Years Occupation Lab Assistant Mining Engineering Department Nit 3 Raipur, Chhattisgarh R/o H. No. 1247/1 Ward No. 21 Indira Nagar Charoda, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh
Legal Reasoning
6 Miss Neha Dubey D/o Shri Rajendra Dev Dubey Aged About 38 Years Occupation Assistant Grade Iii (Contract), Department Of Metallurgical And Material Engineering, Nit, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 7 Sujit Kumar Kar S/o Shri Ajit Kumar Kar Aged About 51 Years Occupation Laboratory Attendant (Contract), Electrical Department Nit, Raipur Chhattisgarh R/o Adarsh Nagar (Arora Colony) Post Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 8 Manohar Lal Dewabgan S/o Shri Jawahar Lal Dewangan Aged About 41 Years Occupation Lab Attendant (Contract), Physics Department Nit, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, R/o Village And Post Katgi, Tahsil Kasdol, District Balodabazar Chhattisgarh 9 Miss Sandhya Joshi D/o Shri Mahajan Aged About 40 Years Occupation Laboratory Attendant (Contract), Electronics And Communication Department Nit, Raipur Chhattisgarh R/o House No. 2931 Sai Nath Colony Lane No. 3, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 10 Miss Anjali Parate D/o Shri Purushottam Parte Aged About 37 Years Occupation Technical Assistant (Contract), Computer Science And Engineering Department Nit, Raipur, Chhattisgarh R/o House No. 1017 Near Budha Talab Pul Mazar Wali Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 11 Smt. Deepika Sharma W/o Shri Ramesh Sharma Aged About 45 Years Occupation Metron Ag-Ii (Contract), Indravati Girls Hostel Nit, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 12 Ujjawala Yadav W/o Shri Narendra Kumar Yadu Aged About 38 Years Occupation Assistant Grade Ii (Contract), Electronic And Communication Department, Nit, Raipur Chhattisgarh, R/o In Front Of Ravan 4 Statue Ring Road, Near Sahu Furnisher, Ravan Bhatha, Bhatha Gav Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 13 Chandrakant Bhanwar S/o Late Shri Laxminarayan Bhanwar Aged About 35 Years Occupation Laboratory Attendant (Contract), Nit, Raipur, Chhattisgarh R/o Shri Ram Nagar Changorabhata, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 14 Mohd. Tanveer Khan S/o Mohd. Talib Khan Aged About 42 Years Occupation Junior Engineer Electrical Department National Institute Of Technology Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 15 Rakesh Kumar S/o Biram Sahu Aged About 38 Years Occupation Technical Assistant (Contract), Metallurgical And Material Engineering Department Nit, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 16 Smt. Sudha Giri W/o Shri Pradeep Prakash Giri Aged About 45 Years Occupation Technical Assistant (Contract), Metallurgical And Material Engineering Department Nit, Raipur, Chhattisgarh R/o Mig-Std 272, Phase-1 Gate No. 2 Kabir Nagar Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 17 Ripusudan Lal Sahu S/o Shri Ramadhar Aged About 54 Years Occupation Technical Assistant Grade Iii, Mechanical Workshop National Institute Of Technology Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 18 Damman Kumar Sahu S/o Late Shri Bishouha Ram Sahu Aged About 35 Years Occupation Lab Assistant Daily Wages (Skill) Electrical Department, Nit, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Presently R/o New Changorabhatha Ganpati Nagar Raipur, Permanent Address Village Borsi Tahsil Rajim, District Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 19 Lekhraj Sahu S/o Shri U.D. Sahu Aged About 43 Years Occupation Data Entry Operator/ Assistant Grade Iii Examincation Cell Nit Raipur, Chhattisgarh R/o Mig-I-1271, Sector-1, Ddu Nagar Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 20 Smt. Manju Verma W/o Shri Mahendra Kumar Verma Aged About 40 Years Occupation Grade Iv (Daily Wages Unskilled), Nit, Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh R/o Village Nardaha, P.O. Nardaha, P.S. Vidhan Sabha Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 21 Rupendra Kumar Dewangan S/o Shri Rameshwar Prasad Dewangan Aged About 37 Years Occupation Assistant Grade Iii (Contract), Chief Warden (Boys) Office Nit, Raipur, Chhattisgarh R/o Dewangan Kirana Store Ward No. 11, Behind Navin School Durga Nagar Amleshwar, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh 22 Tarun Kumar S/o Badri Prasad Aged About 34 Years Occupation Laboratory Assistant (Contract), Mechanical Engineering Department Nit, Raipur, Chhattisgarh R/o H.No. 105, Basti Para, Village And Post Tulsi (Manpur), Tehsil Tilda (Neora) Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 23 Ishwar Kumar Sahu S/o Late Shri Jiwrakhan Lal Sahu Aged About 45 Years Occupation Assistant Grade Ii (Contract), Student Section Nit, Raipur Chhattisgarh R/o H.No. 105, Basti Para, Village And Post Tulsi (Manpur) Tehsil Tilda (Neora) Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 24 Subestin Francis S/o Late Shri Edward Francis Aged About 38 5 Years Occupation Laboratory Assistant (Contract), Nit, Raipur Chhattisgarh, R/o Gopal Nagar (Ram Nagar), Lane No. 2, Near Pooja Kirana Store, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 25 Pavan Kumar Jhariya S/o Shri Natthu Lal Jhariya Aged About 41 Years Occupation - Assistant Grade Ii Contract (Junior/ Senior Assistant), Nit, Raipur Chhattisgarh R/o Ews A-209, Indraprastha Phase Ii, Raipura, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 26 Pramod Kumar Sahu S/o Shri D.S. Sahu Aged About 42 Years Occupation Technical Assistant (Contract), Physics Department Nit, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Permanent R/o H. No. 54/293, S/o D.S. Sahu Behind Gayatri Hospital Daganiya, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 27 Miss Shikha Maturkar D/o Shri Vinod Maturkar Aged About 31 Years Occupation Assistant Grade Iii Department Of Humanities And Social Sciences Nit Raipur, Chhattisgarh, R/o A-173, Housing Board Kota Colony, Gudhyari Road Kota, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 28 Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Human Resource Development Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi (Respondent) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants For Respondent : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate : Ms. Deepali Pandey, Advocate No.1 to 27 For Respondent No.28 : Ms. Anmol Sharma, Advocate 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 6 1. Heard Prateek Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Ms. Deepali Pandey, Advocate and also Ms. Anmol Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. 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. 1555/2024, whereby the writ petition filed by respondent 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 30.06.2025 & 25.06.2025 in WA No. 397 of 2025 and WA No.415 of 2025, whereby the Division Bench of this Court. For ready reference relevant part of WA No. 397 of 2025 is reproduced hereinbelow:- ““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 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 7 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 right under the statute or rule to enforce it. This classical position continues and a mandamus 8 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 daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months 9 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 petitioner was granted one time age relaxation for competing in the selection process of the appellant- 10 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. For ready reference the relevant part of WA No. 415 of 2025 is reproduced hereinbelow:- “7. The case of the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that despite continuing on contractual basis for a period of about 12 years, the services of the writ petitioner was not regularized and as such, he had prayed for regularization of the 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 he was appointed on contractual basis on the basis of walk-in interview. When the initial induction of the writ petitioner in the service was on contract 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 11 regularization of the services. Merely because the writ petitioner worked for a long period of about 12 years, he cannot claim as a matter of right that he ought to have been regularised. The writ petitioner joined on contractual basis without any advertisement or selection process and not appointed against any sanctioned or vacant post therefore his services cannot be regularized. 8. 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 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. 53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be 12 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 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. 54. 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.” 9. Recently, the Apex Court, in Vibhuti Shankar Pandey 13 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 regularization 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. 10. It is well settled that contractual appointment is made for a specific duration. Even when extensions are granted, they too are for a fixed and limited period. Accordingly, a person appointed on a contractual basis is at all times aware that his engagement is for a defined term, subject to the terms and conditions governing contractual employment. Therefore, after expiry of the fixed contractual period the contractual employee has no right to continue in the said post against which he has been appointed on contract basis. 11. This Court, in WA No. 397/2025 (Director, National Institute of Technology & Anr. v. Miss Sandhya Mahadik & Anr.) had an occasion to consider and decide the appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge granting regularisation of the daily wagers. The said order of the learned Single Judge arose from a batch of writ petitions in which some of the petitioners 14 were daily wagers and some of the petitioners were contractual appointees and both the two sets of employees were claiming regularisation. However, this Bench, vide its order dated 25/06/2025, observed as under: “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 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.” In the present case also, the writ petitioner herein has claimed regularisation of his services, however, the fact of the matter is that his appointment was on contractual basis and he was never appointed against any clear sanctioned post advertised by the appellant. Further, as per the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant, the writ petitioner was granted opportunity thrice to participate in regular selection and appointment process but the writ petitioner failed. The said submission has not been 15 controverted by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner. 12. From perusal of record, it quite vivid that the NIT had floated advertisement for recruitment on regular basis, however, the writ petitioner could not succeed and by filing the writ petitioner, he has attempted to get a favourable order in his favour knowing fully well that when his appointment itself is on contractual basis, his services cannot be regularised. 13. Applying the well settled legal prepositions of law to the facts of the present case and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the impugned order passed by the Single Judge directing the appellants herein to regularize the service of respondent No.1/the writ petitioner, is not sustainable and is accordingly set-aside. 14. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed. 4. In the present appeal some of the respondents are daily wagers and some of them are contractual employees. In respect of both the set of contractual and daily wager employees several writ appeals were decided by this Court. WA No. 415/ 2025 (contractual) and WA No. 397/2025 (daily wagers). 5. 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 and WA No. 415 of 2025 . No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti/ $ Bhilwar