1 Director National Institute Of Technology (Nit) Raipur Through Director Nit Raipur Ge Road v. 1 Sunil Kumar Soni S/o
Case Details
1 JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.07.11 10:17:48 +0530 2025:CGHC:31841-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 460 of 2025 1 Director National Institute Of Technology (Nit) Raipur Through Director Nit Raipur Ge Road Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 2 Registrar National Institute Of Technology (Nit) Raipur Through Director Nit Raipur Ge Road Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 Sunil Kumar Soni S/o Shri Laxmi Narayan Soni Aged About 41 Years Occupation Laboratory Attendant (Contract) Mining Engineering Department Nit Raipur (C.G.) District Raipur (C.G.) (Petitioner) 2 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
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate : Ms. Deepali Pandey, Advocate No.1 For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Anmol Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge 2
Decision
Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 10.07.2025 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. 6247/2023, 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 in WA No.415 of 2025, whereby the Division Bench of this Court has held as under:- “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 3 learned Single Judge to take a lenient view and order 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. 4 53. 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 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 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 view of above, the present writ appeal is allowed in terms of the order passed by this Court in WA No. 415 of 2025. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti/ $ Bhilwar