1 2025:CGHC:29252-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 415 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.) Appellants versus 1 - Ramesh Kumar Vijay S/o Shri Ramayan Prasad Aged About 37 Years Occupation Technical Assistant (Contract), Nit, Raipur, (C.G.), District Raipur (C.G.) R/o Mandalkholi, Village Banari Post Bannari, Tahsil Janjgir District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2 - The Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Human Resource Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi. Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Ms. Deepali Pandey, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. R.K. Mishra, DSGI along with Ms. Sweta Rai, Advocate 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 30/06/2025 1. The instant Writ Appeal under Section 2 Sub Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 has been preferred against the order dated 19/02/2025 (Annexure-A/1) passed in Writ Petition (S) No. 8687/2023, whereby it was directed for regularization of the services of the Writ Petitioner (respondent No.1) herein. 2. (a) Brief facts of the case are that that the Government Engineering College was running by State of C.G. under Technical Education Department which is taken over by National Institute of Technology, Raipur (henceforth ‘the NIT’) and the sanctioned setup of Government Engineering College was mentioned in letter dated 10.11.2005 by Deputy Secretary Directorate of Technical Education (DTE), C.G. Out of total 140 employees opted for NIT, which includes 52 faculty members, 58 non teaching staff and 30 contingency staff, as per letter dated 23.12.2006 received from Secretary Technical Education, C.G. Government. Majority of employees opted for NIT had gone back to State Government service and only 37 non-teaching staff belonging to Group C & D remained with NIT which was confirmed to the ministry of HRD Union Of India by letter dated 06.03.2009. But поne of the respondent come from Government Engineering College. 3 (b) The total number of employees including faculty and non faculty absorbed in the services of NIT Raipur were 88 and the same was communicated to the Secretary MHRD, Union of India vide letter dated 20.05.2009. The Statutes under NIT Act 2007 were made and notified on 23.04.2009. Due to immediate requirement to meet the shortage of man power which was adversely affecting the overall working of the Institute, contract appointments were made by the NIT Raipur and walk-in- interview advertisement was issued. However it is noteworthy to mention here that since the set up of NIT Raipur after restructuring was not received, therefore, no posts were sanctioned at the time of issuance of advertisement and no appointments were made against sanctioned posts. Thus, none of the contract/daily wager appointment was made against the sanctioned post, nor made in accordance with the NIT recruitment rules, nor in accordance with recruitment process of NIT Raipur and the same is made only as time gap arrangement. Qualification prescribed for filling up above posts were in accordance with the rules of the State Government for want of sanctioned set up separately for NIT Raipur. On the above basis, scrutiny was done and interview was taken thereafter appointments were made on contract basis between 2007 to 2013, however, reservation rules as well as policy were not followed, neither selection committee was constituted as per the Statutes of NIT Raipur. (c) The restructured sanctioned set-up of NIT Raipur was received on 12.06.2012 form the Ministry of MHRD Union of India and the total sanctioned non teaching posts in above set up is 293 which includes Group A,B,C. After the sanctioned, posts set up was sent by the Ministry of MHRD Union of India and all the regular appointments were made according to either Model Rules 2012 or Rules 2014 or Rules 2017 or 4 Rules 2019 as the case may be. Regular appointments against sanctioned posts were made in accordance with the recruitment rules framed, through advertisement and selection process applying reservation policy by a duly constituted selection. However in view of requirement of manpower some contract appointments were also made but the same was not made against any sanctioned posts. According to the appellant, there were no sanctioned posts in the above set up for appointment of High Skilled/Semi Skilled/Unskilled workers to perform duties of certain essential services like Peon, Sweeper, Gardner, Driver, Security Guards, Mason, Carpenter, Plumber, workers in Laboratories/Offices etc., therefore, these posts were not advertised for selection and appointment of eligible candidates. However the work was so essential that they could not be postponed therefore many persons were engaged as High Skilled/Semi Skilled/Unskilled workers. According to the appellant, most of them were outsourced like workers of Security, Horticulture, Cleaning and Housekeeping. Presently total 121 daily wages (Contract) employees are engaged in work at NIT Raipur and only 34 posts are sanctioned in different heads, but there appointment on daily basis is made without any advertisement or selection process prescribed under Rule and not against any designation of work, therefore, their appointment comes under category of illegal appointment as per the criteria prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Secretary State of Karnatka v. Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. (d) The respondent no. (d) The respondent no. 1/petitioner pleaded that he was appointed on contract basis in the post of Technical Assistant of NIT Raipur, without providing details of posts and orders or date of appointment and no proper pleading is made by the petitioner. The reason is obvious that the respondent no.1 wanted to suppress the fact that in his appointment 5 order on contract basis, in clause 3 it is categorically mentioned that the contract employee will not be entitled for regularization in the service of NIT Raipur, irrespective of the period of employment or number of days in service and the respondent joined the service accepting the above conditions continuously without any demur of protest till date. According to the respondent, in the case of NIT Raipur advertisement for filling the sanctioned posts in which petitioner appeared, was issued in the year 2009 Junior Engineer (02), Senior Laboratory Assistant (06)), 2011 Junior Engineer (01), Senior Laboratory Assistant (0.1), Hindi Officer (01), Junior Hindi Translator (01), Hindi Typist (01)], 2014 [Secretary (2), Accountant (03), Superintendent (04), Assistant Registrar (01)), 2015 [Technical Assistant (13), Laboratory Assistant/Work Assistant (32)], 2017 [Assistant Registrar (01)], 2023 [Student Activity and Sports Officer (01), Superintendent (06), Personal Assistant (01), Senior Technician (10), Stenographer (05), Senior Assistant (06), Junior Assistant (10), Technician (05), Office Attendant (15), Technical Assistant (09), Junior Engineer (02), Pharmacist (01), Assistant Registrar (02)), 2024 [Technical Assistant (02)]. The petitioner duly participated in the selection process but failed to succeed. Now through the intervention of the Hon'ble Court he had sought unwarranted and illegal backdoor entry through filing writ petition for regularization of his service. It is also important to mention here that from above it is also evident that the appellants are not compelling the respondent to work on contract basis but holding selection process from time to time, providing them opportunity of competing in the open advertisement subject to fulfillment of the eligibility criteria. The respondents were also provided NOC from time to time to apply elsewhere and were also granted one time age relaxation in regular selection process of NIT Raipur vide advertisement 6 dated 13.07.2023, wherein two contractual employees namely Ms Babita Dewangan & Mr. Rajendra Kumar Singh were selected and appointed as regular employees. (e) According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the basic principle of contractual appointment is that such appointments are 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 their 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. Contractual appointments are made in the NIT Raipur, the same were not made in accordance with the rules and made without following any selection process, advertisement prescribed under Rule, without any designation and not made against any sanctioned posts. Therefore the appointments cannot be regularized. According to the appellant, against the sanctioned posts of NIT Raipur, regular appointments by following the due selection process as per the extant rules, have been made from time to time. (f) Respondent No. 1 Ramesh Kumar Vijay joined on 11.03.2013, in the post of Technical Assistant, on contract basis, however no post of Technical Assistant is sanctioned for NIT Raipur and total 16 posts of Office Attendant is sanctioned for NIT Raipur out of which 15 posts are already filled up by way of regular appointment and only 1 post is lying vacant, whereas 14 persons are appointed on the contract basis in the post of Technical Assistant. The respondents pleaded selective facts and suppressed the substantial fact. The counsel for respondent filed various 7 writ petitions of about 38 employees of NIT Raipur and got all the matters linked therefore Joint hearing was done by the Court and impugned common order is passed though no was filed on behalf of the appellants. 3. (i) Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant/NIT would submit that respondent No.1/the petitioner therein who is working under the office of NIT on contractual basis, claimed relief to direct the authorities to consider the case of the respondent No.1/ for regularization before the Hon’ble Single Bench, but there are no rules framed by the respondent authorities to regularize respondent No.1/the petitioner on the post on which he has been working since long. He would further submit that the NIT have availed the services of respondent No.1/the petitioner therein on contractual basis, without there being any regular appointment over the said posts at that relevant point of time and at this juncture, the law governing the contractual appointments of respondent No1/petitioner therein with the appellant herein do not bind them for regularizing the services. He would also submit that perusal of the appointment orders issued to respondent No.1 would solidify the stand of the appellants that there was absolutely nothing binding upon them to regularize the services of respondent No.1 and further extension orders filed by respondent No.1 would bring to the notice only one fact that appointments of respondent No.1 was strictly on contractual and temporary basis and other Departments are having different set of Rules, which cannot be made applicable to respondent No.1 as per the Rules being different in nature cannot be equated with them. (ii) Mr. Sharma further submits that the contractual appointees like respondent No. 1/the Writ Petitioner participated in the recruitment process of appointment of regular post lying vacant in the Institute. They 8 have participated thrice, but could not qualified in the said recruitment process. Hence as they have failed in the said recruitment process, the claim of regularization is not justified as their employment on contract basis is in fact irregular assignment and not authorized under the law which in fact a back door entry. As such, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 4. Supporting the impugned order, Ms. Deepali Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 would submit that respondent No.1 was appointed after following the due process of law i.e. after issuance of the advertisement, calling application from the candidates and with due procedure. The appointment of respondent No.1 was neither illegal nor irregular and respondent No.1 has completed 12 years of service. If respondent No.1 would be removed at this stage and regular appointment would be made, it would cause injustice and he will deprived from his right to be considered for regularization. She would further submit that respondent No.1 was appointed against the vacant sanctioned posts and is duly qualified person as well as he has completed more than 12 years of service, and as such, his candidature ought to have been considered by the authorities of the appellant for regularization. 5. Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing for the respondent/Union of India submits that the dispute is mainly between the appellant and the writ petitioners, however, he supports the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9 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 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 10 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 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.” 11 9. 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 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 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 12 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 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 13 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. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Gowri / Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.07.02 21:04:59 +0530