1 2025:CGHC:30779-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 440 of 2025 1 - Director National Institute Of Technology 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 - Sheshnarayan Verma S/o Shri Shatrughan Prasad Verma Aged About 36 Years Occupation Technical Assistant, Chemistry Department, Nit, Raipur, 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 Appellant(s) : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Deepali Pandey and Mr. R.K. Mishra, Advocates Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.07.08 11:03:34 +0530 2 07.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Ms. Deepali Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No.1 as well as Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General for respondent No.2. 2. The present writ appeal is preferred assailing the order dated 19.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 6752/2024 (Shesh Narayan Verma vs. Union of India and Others), whereby, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/respondent No.1. 3. It has been pointed out by learned counsel, appearing for the appellant as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents that in an identical matter, this Bench had allowed WA No. 415/2025 (Director, National institute of Technology (N.I.T.) and another vs. Rajesh Kumar Vijay and another) vide order dated 30.06.2025, observing as follows : “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. 3 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 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 4 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 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.” 5 They further submit that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No. 415/2025, this appeal may also be allowed in the same terms. 4. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to WA No. 415/2025, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WA No. 415/2025. 5. Ms. Deepali Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No.1 prays to submit her reply in the matter, but considering the fact that the matter has already been dealt with by this Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties in WA No.415/2025 and pleadings have already been exchanged between the parties before the Writ Court, as such, her prayer is rejected. 6. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed in terms of the order dated 30.06.2025 passed in WA No. 415/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet