1 2025:CGHC:33926-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 483 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) ... Appellants versus 1 - Rashmi Nagpal D/o Shri Nirmal Nagpal, Aged About 40 Years Occupation Technical Assistant III (Contract), Dean, Students Welfare, NIT, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) R/o Roop Savitri, Near Vandana Bajaj Auto Showroom, Ramkund, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Human Resource Development Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr.Rajkumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr.Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.07.18 18:42:54 +0530 2 18.07.2025 1. Heard Mr.Rajkumar Sahu, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr.Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General for respondent No.2. 2. This writ appeal is presented against the order dated 19.02.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No.8674 of 2023, whereby learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent No.1. 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 in WA No.415/2025 (Director, National Institute of Technology and another v. Ramesh Kumar Vijay and another), decided on 30.06.2025, whereby this Court has observed as under:- “11……..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. 3 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 also allowed in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in WA No.415/2025. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu