1 2025:CGHC:59342 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1982 of 2023 1 - Rajat Kumar Das S/o Late Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Das Aged About 34 Years Caste Namoshudra, Post Lecturer (Local Body), Posted At Govt. High School Asebeda, Block Koylibeda, District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sunil Monda S/o Mr. Subal Mondal Aged About 45 Years Caste Namoshudra, Post Lecturer (Local Body), Posted At Govt. High School Asebeda, Block Koylibeda, District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. 3 - Baby Sarkar W/o Mr. Dinesh Sarkar Aged About 42 Years Caste Namoshudra, Post Lecturer (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Asebeda, Block Koylibeda, District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. 4 - Paritosh Kumar Mandal S/o Late Mr. Girish Chandra Mandal Aged About 52 Years Caste Namoshudra, Post Lecturer (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Asebeda, Block Koylibeda, District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. 5 - Birendra Bahadur Sahu S/o Mr. Khemram Sahu Aged About 42 Years Caste Teli, Post Lecturer (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Asebeda, Block Koylibeda, District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. 6 - Rajendra Kumar Netam S/o Mr. Lt. Mahendra Kumar Netam Aged About 33 Years Caste Gond,post Lecturer (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Asebeda, Block Koylibeda, District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.12.08 18:08:08 +0530 2 7 - Soumen Sarkar S/o Mr. Narayan Chandra Sarkar Aged About 41 Years Caste Kshatriya, Post Lecturer (Local Body), Posted At Govt. High School Asebeda, Block Koylibeda, District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. 8 - Radhe Lal Tekam S/o Mr. Dev Lal Tekam Aged About 43 Years Caste Gond, Post Lecturer (Local Body), Posted At Govt. High School Asebeda, Block Koylibeda, District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. 9 - Rajesh Kumar Netam S/o Late Mr. Amru Ram Netam Aged About 45 Years Caste Gond, Post Lecturer (Local Body), Posted At Govt. High School Asebeda, Block Koylibeda, District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. 10 - Mrs. Poshida Bhuvarya Rajesh Kumar Bhuvarya Aged About 39 Years Caste Halba, Post Lecturer (Local Body), Posted At Govt. High School Asebeda, Block Koylibeda, District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. 11 - Prakash Sarkar S/o Mr. Sudhanshu Sarkar Aged About 35 Years Caste Namoshudra, Post Assistant Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt. High School Asebeda, Block Koylibeda, District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. 12 - Dinesh Sarkar S/o Late Mr. Dulal Sarkar Aged About 46 Years Caste Namoshudra, Post Lecturer (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School Kapsi, Block Koylibeda, District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. 13 - Kaloli Shil D/o Kartik Chandra Shil Aged About 36 Years Caste Namoshudra, Post Lecturer (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School Asebeda, Block Koylibeda, District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioners versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 2 - Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Director, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents WPS No. 2251 of 2023 1 - Nand Kumar Thakur S/o Mr. Jagat Ram Thakur Aged About 44 Years Post Lecturer (Local Body), Posted At Govt. High School, Chandipur Block Koylibeda, Distt. Uttar Baster Kanker (C.G.) 2 - Khilgajanand Sarwa S/o Mr. Dewnarayan Sarwa Aged About 43 Years Post Lecturer (Local Body), Posted At Govt. High School Makdi Khuna Block Kanker, Distt. U B Kanker (C.G.) 3 - Mrs. Asha Sarwa W/o Mr. Khilgajanand Aged About 42 Years Post Lecturer (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Sahawada, Block Charama, Distt. Uttar Baster Kanker (C.G.) 4 - Mrs. Sangeeta Rani W/o Mr. Arun Kumar Aged About 33 Years Post Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Girls Upper Primary School Pakhanjore, Block Koylibeda, Distt. Uttar Baster Kanker (C.G.) 5 - Horee Lal Sahu S/o Mr. Ram Kumar Sahu Aged About 44 Years Post Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Upper Primary School Matoli, Block Koylibeda, Distt. Uttar Baster Kanker (C.G.) 6 - Mrs. Keshri Soni W/o Mr. Kamalkant Soni Aged About 30 Years Post Assistant Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Primary School P.V. 89, Block Koylibeda, Distt. Uttar Baster Kanker (C.G.) 7 - Keshaw Lal Yadu S/o Mr. Dore Lal Yadu Aged About 53 Years Post Teacher (Local Body) Posted At Govt. Upper Primary School, P.V. 32 Block Koylibeda, Distt. Uttar Baster Kanker (C.G.) 8 - Dinesh Kumar Yadav S/o Mr. Shyam Lal Yadav Aged About 45 Years Post Teacher (Local Body) Posted At Govt. Upper Primary School P.V. 52, Block Koylibeda, Distt. Uttar Baster Kanker (C.G.) 4 9 - Yogesh Kumar Sahani S/o Mr. Munnu Lal Sahani Aged About 43 Years Post Assistant Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Primary School Hanpharsi, Block Koylibeda, Distt. Uttar Baster Kanker (C.G.) 10 - Pushker Ram Divaker S/o Mr. Raju Ram Divaker Aged About 50 Years Post Assistant Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Primary School, P.V. 54, Block Koylibeda, Distt. Uttar Baster Kanker (C.G.) ---Petitioners Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, Distt Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Secretary Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Director Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 4 - District Education Officer Distt. Uttar Baster Kanker (C.G.) --- Respondents WPS No. 2158 of 2023 1 - Anil Kumar Sahu S/o Mr. Hiramanlal Sahu Aged About 45 Years Post Assistant Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Primary School, P.V. 47, Radhanagar, Block Koylibeda, District- Uttar Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh 2 - Homlal Kanwar S/o Mr. Umend Ram Kanwar Aged About 44 Years Post Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Upper Primary School P. V. 47 Radhanagar, Block Koylibeda, District Uttar Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh 3 - Narendra Kumar Thakur S/o Kali Ram Thakur Aged About 43 Years Post Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Upper Primary School P. V. 47, Radhanagar, Block Koylibeda, District Uttar Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh 5 4 - Vijay Bhardwaj S/o Mr. Ram Dayal Bhardwaj Aged About 36 Years Post Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Upper Primary School Asebeda Block Koylibeda, District Uttar Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh 5 - Ghanshyam Shori S/o Mr. Kanwal Ram Shori Aged About 37 Years Post Lecturer (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Hanker, Block Koylibeda, District Uttar Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh 6 - Mrs. Soma Goswami W/o Mr. Tarak Nath Goswami Aged About 47 Years Post Lecturer (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Mayapur P. V. 18, Block Koylibeda, District Uttar Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh 7 - Mrs. Ramita Taram W/o Mr. Mohit Taram Aged About 37 Years Post Lecturer (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Mayapur P. V. 53, Block Koylibeda, District Uttar Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh 8 - Mrs. Mariyana Barla W/o Mr. Lorentus Barla Aged About 38 Years Post Lecturer (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Mayapur P. V. 53, Block Koylibeda, District Uttar Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh 9 - Mohit Ram Taram S/o Mr. Mahesh Ram Aged About 38 Years Post Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Upper Primary School P. V. 53, Block Koylibeda, District Uttar Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh 10 - Santosh Kumar Thakur S/o Mr. Punit Ram Thakur Aged About 38 Years Post Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Upper Primary School P. V. 77, Block Koylibeda, District Uttar Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh 11 - Khoman Lal Kunjam S/o Mr. Arjun Singh Kunjam Aged About 40 Years Post Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Upper Primary School P. V. 15, Ashrampara, Block Koylibeda, District Uttar Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh 12 - Jagdish Prasad Koma S/o Late Mr. Kanglu Ram Koma Aged About 54 Years Post Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Upper Primary School B. V. Dhandana, Block Koylibeda, District Uttar Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh 6 13 - Kamal Kishor Baghel S/o Mr. A. R. Baghel Aged About 35 Years Post Assistant Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Primary School P. V. 21, Block Koylibeda, District Uttar Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh 14 - Satyanarayan Sinha S/o Mr. Lakhan Lal Aged About 38 Years Post Assistant Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Primary School P. V. 15, Ashrampara, Block Koylibeda, District Uttar Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh 15 - Mrs. Deepti Biswas W/o Mr. Basudev Biswas Aged About 44 Years Post Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Upper Primary School P. V. 41, Block Koylibeda, District Uttar Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh 16 - Mrs. Mamta Arya S/o Nandkishor Arya Aged About 33 Years Post Assistant Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Primary School P. V. 18, Mayapur, Block Koylibeda, District Uttar Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh 17 - Rikhi Ram Bhuarya S/o Bishau Ram Bhuarya Aged About 41 Years Post Lecturer (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Matoli, Block Koylibeda, District Uttar Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh 18 - Dasrath Singh Merabi S/o Mangatoo Ram Merabi Aged About 46 Years Post Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Upper Primary School P. V. 53, Block Koylibeda, District Uttar Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioners Versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Secretary Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Director Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 7 4 - District Education Officer Uttar Baster Kanker, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WPS No. 2763 of 2023 1 - Khokan Sikdar S/o Jogendra Nath Sikdar Aged About 39 Years Post Lecturer (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Bande, Block Koylibeda, District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh 2 - Bhel Singh Dhruwanshi S/o Mr. Fagoo Ram Aged About 41 Years Post Assistant Teacher (L.B.) Posted At Govt. Primary School Mousamtola, Block Koylibeda, District U.B. Kanker Chhattisgarh 3 - Ravindra Kumar Darpatti S/o Kunwar Singh Aged About 39 Years Post Assistant Teacher (Local Body) Posted At Govt. Primary School Godaldand, Block Koylibeda, District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh 4 - Leena Sevta W/o Mr. Rakesh Sevta Aged About 36 Years Post Head Master (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Primary School Jabeli, Block Koylibeda, District U.B. Kanker Chhattisgarh 5 - Mahesh Kumar Nishad S/o Shri Atmaram Nishad Aged About 36 Years Post Assistant Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Primary School Nagaldand Nayapara, Block Koylibeda, Distict U.B. Kanker Chhattisgarh 6 - Devendra Kumar Padoti S/o Ramadhin Padoti Aged About 34 Years Post Assistant Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Primary School P.V. 89, Block Koylibeda, District U.B. Kanker Chhattisgarh 7 - Hirondee Pisda W/o Mr. Roopram Pisda Aged About 37 Years Post Head Master, (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Primary School Pedenga, Block Koylibeda, District U.B. Kanker 8 - Kanwal Singh Masiyare S/o Shyamlal Masiyare Aged About 40 Years Post Head Master, (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Primary School Chichekatta, Block Koylibeda, District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh 9 - Sukhit Ram Netam S/o Nakulram Netam Aged About 42 Years Post Lecturer, (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Bande, Block Koylibeda, District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh 8 10 - Tameshwar Kumar Gharendra S/o Jhumuklal Gharendra Aged About 36 Years Assistant Teacher , (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Primary School Pusgutta, Block Koylibeda, District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh 11 - Jitendra Bhardwaj S/o Darbar Singh Aged About 46 Years Post Assistant Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Primary School Ogra, Block Koylibeda, District U.B. Kanker Chhattisgarh 12 - Yashwant Kumar S/o Toman Lal Aged About 41 Years Post Assistant Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Primary School Balligarh (Chiharipara) Block Koylibeda, District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh 13 - Manisha Churendra W/o Yashwant Kumar Churendra Aged About 34 Years Post Assistant Teacher, (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Primary School Nagaldand, Block Koylibeda, District U.B. Kanker Chhattisgarh 14 - Ajay Kumar Sirdar S/o Vijay Kumar Sirdar Aged About 46 Years Post Assistant Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Primary School Madpakhanjore, Block Koylibeda, District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh 15 - Rajesh Kumar Shori S/o Sukman Shori Aged About 37 Years Post Head Master, (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Primary School Balligarh (Khas), Block Koylibeda, District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh 16 - Revati Shori W/o Rajesh Kumar Shori Aged About 39 Years Post Head Master, (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Primary School Nehrutola, Block Koylibeda, District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh 17 - Naresh Kumar Sahu S/o Mr. Chatur Ram Sahu Aged About 43 Years Post Teacher, (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Upper Primary School, P.V. 61, Block Koylibeda, District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh ---Petitioners Versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 9 2 - Secretary Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Director Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 4 - District Education Officer District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgasrh --- Respondents WPS No. 2843 of 2023 1 - Siya Ram Dhruw S/o Mr. Pusau Ram Dhruw, Aged About 55 Years Post Lecturer (Local Body), Posted A Govt. Higher Secondary School Irpanar, Block Koylibeda, District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. 2 - Jewan Lal Baghel, S/o Mr. Mani Ram Baghel Aged About 54 Years Post Lecturer (Local Body), Posted A Govt. Higher Secondary School Chandeli Block Charama, District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ashok Markam, S/o Mr. Roop Singh Markam, Aged About 53 Years Post Lecturer (Local Body), Posted A Govt. Higher Secondary School Barvi, Block Bhanupratappur, District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sahdev Ram Nag, S/o Mr. Brij Lal Nag, Aged About 50 Years Post Lecturer (Local Body), Posted A Govt. Higher Secondary School Partapur, Block Koylibeda, District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. 5 - Girdhar Ram Dehari S/o Sada Ram Dehari, Aged About 50 Years Post Lecturer (Local Body), Posted A Govt. Higher Secondary School Bhansuli Block Narharpur District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. 6 - Raman Lal Rawte, S/o Mr. Khorbahra Ram Rawte, Aged About 40 Years Post Lecturer (Local Body), Posted A Govt. Higher Secondary School Dudhawa, Block Narharpur, District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. 7 - Ude Ram Bhuarya, S/o Mr. Relha Ram Bhuarya, Aged About 36 Years Post Lecturer (Local Body), Posted A Govt. Higher Secondary School Amagarh, Block Koylibeda, District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. 10 8 - Rajesh Kumar Dhruw, S/o Rammilan Dhruw, Aged About 36 Years Post Lecturer (Local Body), Posted A Govt. Higher Secondary School Machpalli, Block Koylibeda, District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. 9 - Purushottam Lal Sahu, S/o Mr. Anuk La Sahu, Aged About 37 Years Post Lecturer (Local Body), Posted A Govt. Higher Secondary School Charbhatha, Block Charma, District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. 10 - Alpesh Singh Watti, S/o Maya Ram Watti, Aged About 47 Years Post Lecturer (Local Body), Posted A Govt. Higher Secondary School Asulkhar, Block Bhanupratappur, District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. 11 - Sabal Singh Diwan, S/o Mehtar Ram Diwan, Aged About 42 Years Post Lecturer (Local Body), Posted A Govt. Higher Secondary School Amagarh, Block Durgukondal, District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. 12 - Rajendra Kumar Netam S/o Mr. Milan Singh Netam Aged About 40 Years Post Lecturer (Local Body), Posted A Govt. Higher Secondary School Dudhawa, Block Narharpur, District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. 13 - Mrs. Sarita Netam, W/o Mr. Rajendra Kumar Netam, Aged About 44 Years Post Lecturer (Local Body), Posted A Govt. Higher Secondary School Dudhawa, Block Narharpur, District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. 14 - Shyam Yadav, S/o Etwari Gop, Aged About 44 Years Post Lecturer (Local Body), Posted A Govt. Higher Secondary School Dudhawa, Block Narharpur District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. 15 - Mrs. Khomin Rawte, W/o Raman Lal Rawte, Aged About 39 Years Post Assistant Teacher (Local Body), Posted A Govt. Higher Primary School Thelkabod, Block Narharpur District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioners Versus 11 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Director, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur. District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - District Education Officer, District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 05.12.2025 1. Heard Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that the issue involved in these writ petitions has already been considered and decided by this Court in WPS No.1389/2021 and analogous cases decided on 28.11.2025. 3. This Court while dismissing WPS No.1389/2021 and analogous cases vide order dated 28.11.2025 observed as follows : “23. From a bare perusal of the record, it is evident that the State Government had taken a 12 comprehensive policy decision in response to long- standing demands of the Shiksha Karmis seeking their absorption. Considering these representations, the State issued an order dated 30.06.2018 providing for the absorption of Shiksha Karmis of Panchayats and Local Bodies who had completed eight years of continuous service. Their absorption was made effective from 01.07.2018 and was accompanied by several conditions. Two of the most significant conditions were: (i) that their services would be counted only from the date of absorption, i.e., 01.07.2018, for all service-related purposes; and (ii) that they would be entitled to the benefits of the 7th Pay Commission only from 01.07.2018. The order further clarified that no monetary benefits or arrears prior to 01.07.2018 would be admissible and that they would be governed by the New Pension Scheme upon absorption. 24. The petitioners, along with other categories of Shiksha Karmis, Teachers, and Lecturers engaged under Panchayats and Local Bodies, accepted and acted upon the said policy without raising any grievance regarding either the terms of absorption or the date from which benefits accrued. Their absorption in the School Education Department was thus voluntary, conscious, and with full knowledge of the conditions stipulated in the order dated 30.06.2018. Subsequently, the State Government, in furtherance of its uniform policy framework, issued another order dated 23.07.2020 extending absorption benefits to those Teachers of Panchayats and Local Bodies who had completed two years or more of service. The total number of such Teachers came to 16,278. This policy was intended to achieve uniformity, parity, and standardization across all categories of Teachers. Importantly, the conditions of their absorption were also made identical to those contained in the earlier order dated 30.06.2018. 25. A careful examination of the subsequent order dated 23.07.2020 reveals that it neither disturbs the service conditions of the petitioners nor causes any prejudice to them. Their seniority, pay scale, and related benefits remain unaffected by the absorption of these additional Teachers. The absorption of fresh batches of Teachers under the same conditions does not dilute or infringe upon the rights 13 already accrued to the petitioners. There is also no violation of the Rules, 2018. Nothing has been shown on record to indicate arbitrariness, discrimination, or any deviation from the prescribed statutory framework in the formulation of this subsequent policy. 26. Once the State Government, in its executive capacity, has taken a conscious policy decision to extend the benefit of absorption to Teachers who have completed two years of service, such a decision cannot be subjected to judicial interference unless it is demonstrated to be arbitrary, mala fide, irrational, or violative of statutory provisions. In the present case, the petitioners have not been able to show that the impugned policy causes any adverse civil consequences to them. A policy decision merely extending benefits to others, without causing prejudice to pre-existing beneficiaries, cannot be a ground for challenge. 27. The petitioners have entirely failed to establish that the policy decision dated 23.07.2020 suffers from arbitrariness or irrationality. Their own service conditions, benefits, and gradation remain wholly unaffected. The mere contention that other Teachers may receive similar benefits after shorter periods of service does not confer any enforceable right upon the petitioners to seek modification or quashing of the policy. Courts have consistently held that a policy granting benefits to others cannot be interfered with merely because earlier beneficiaries perceive it as reducing their relative advantage. 28. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Municipal Council, Neemuch v. Mahadeo Real Estate and Others, (2019) 10 SCC 738, while considering the scope of interference by the Courts in matters falling within the exclusive domain of the State’s policy decisions, has held as under:- “13. In the present case, the learned Judges of the Division Bench have arrived at a finding that such a sanction was, in fact, granted. We will examine the correctness of the said finding of fact at a subsequent stage. However, before doing that, we propose to examine the scope of the powers of the High Court of judicial review of an administrative action. Though, there are a catena of judgments of this Court on the said 14 issue, the law laid down by this Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 lays down the basic principles which still hold the field. Para 77 of the said judgment reads thus. (SCC pp. 677-78) “77. The duty of the court is to confine itself to the question of legality. Its concern should be: 1. Whether a decision-making authority exceeded its powers? 2. Committed an error of law, 3. committed a breach of the rules of natural justice, 4. reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached or, 5. abused its powers. Therefore, it is not for the court to determine whether a particular policy or particular decision taken in the fulfilment of that policy is fair. It is only concerned with the manner in which those decisions have been taken. The extent of the duty to act fairly will vary from case to case. Shortly put, the grounds upon which an administrative action is subject to control by judicial review can be classified as under: (i) Illegality: This means the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it. (ii) Irrationality, namely, Wednesbury unreasonableness. (iii) Procedural impropriety. The above are only the broad grounds but it does not rule out addition of further grounds in course of time. As a matter of fact, in R. v. Secy. of State for Home Department, ex p Brind, (1991) 1 AC 696, Lord Diplock refers specifically to one development, namely, the possible recognition of the principle of proportionality. In all these cases, the test to be adopted is that the court should, 'consider whether something has gone wrong of a nature and degree which requires its intervention"." 14. It could thus be seen that the scope of 15 judicial review of an administrative action is very limited. Unless the Court comes to a conclusion that the decision-maker has not understood the law correctly that regulates his decision-making power or when it is found that the decision of the decision-maker is vitiated by irrationality and that too on the principle of "Wednesbury unreasonableness or unless it is found that there has been a procedural impropriety in the decision-making process, it would not be permissible for the High Court to interfere in the decision-making process. It is also equally well settled that it is not permissible for the Court to examine the validity of the decision but this Court can examine only the correctness of the decision making process. 15. This Court recently in W.B. Central School Service Commission v. Abdul Halim, (2019) 18 SCC 39, had again an occasion to consider the scope of interference under Article 226 in an administrative action: "31. In exercise of its power of judicial review, the Court is to see whether the decision impugned is vitiated by an apparent error of law. The test to determine whether a decision is vitiated by error apparent on the face of the record is whether the error is self-evident on the face of the record or whether the error requires examination or argument to establish it. If an error has to be established by a process of reasoning, on points where there b may reasonably be two opinions, it cannot be said to be an error on the face of the record, as held by this Court in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, AIR 1960 SC 137. If the provision of a statutory rule is reasonably capable of two or more constructions and one construction has been adopted, the decision would not be open to interference by the writ court. It is only an obvious misinterpretation of a relevant statutory provision, or ignorance or disregard thereof, or a decision founded on reasons which are clearly wrong in law, which can be corrected by the writ court by issuance of writ of certiorari. 32. The sweep of power under Article 226 may be wide enough to quash unreasonable orders. If a decision is so arbitrary and capricious that 16 no reasonable person could have ever arrived at it, the same is liable to be struck down by a writ court. If the decision cannot rationally be supported by the materials on record, the same may be regarded as perverse. 33. However, the power of the Court to examine the reasonableness of an order of the authorities does not enable the Court to look into the sufficiency of the grounds in support of a decision to examine the merits of the decision, sitting as if in appeal over the decision. The test is not what the Court considers reasonable or unreasonable but a decision which the Court thinks that no reasonable person could have taken, which has led to manifest injustice. The writ court does not interfere, because a decision is not perfect.” 29. In the light of the above authoritative principles, when the impugned policy dated 23.07.2020 is examined, it is manifest that the State Government, in exercise of its executive power, has framed a policy to extend the benefit of absorption to a fresh category of teachers upon completion of two years of service. This policy neither divests nor curtails any of the benefits already granted to the petitioners under the earlier policy dated 30.06.2018. The petitioners have also failed to demonstrate any illegality, procedural impropriety, or Wednesbury unreasonableness in the decision-making process. Mere dissatisfaction or a claim for perceived parity, without any infringement of legal or vested rights, cannot constitute a ground for judicial intervention. 30. The plea of the petitioners that they are entitled to notional absorption from the date they completed two years of service is wholly misconceived. The petitioners voluntarily accepted absorption under the 2018 policy after completion of eight years of service, and their absorption has long since attained finality. They cannot now seek to reopen settled service conditions by seeking a re-determination of their absorption date. Service jurisprudence is clear that once an employee accepts a policy and receives benefits thereunder without demur, he cannot subsequently approbate and reprobate by seeking more advantageous treatment under a later policy. The doctrine of estoppel squarely applies in the present case. 17 31. The petitioners’ apprehension that they have been placed at a disadvantage in comparison to those absorbed under the 2020 policy is also unfounded. The petitioners were extended the 7th Pay Commission benefits with effect from 01.07.2018, whereas the newly absorbed teachers receive such benefits only from 01.11.2020. The mere fact that the qualifying service for absorption has been relaxed for a subsequent group of employees does not adversely affect the petitioners’ service rights. Relaxation of criteria in favour of one class of employees does not automatically entitle another class to seek retrospective or notional extension of similar benefits. 32. It is also well-settled that a policy cannot be struck down merely because it grants concessions to another group. In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar, (2021) 2 SCC 713, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Article 14 does not envisage negative equality, and no employee can claim a benefit solely because another person has been granted such benefit under a relaxation or a one-time measure. The petitioners’ claim falls squarely within the realm of negative equality, which is impermissible in law. 33. Furthermore, the prayer of the petitioners seeking notional seniority and consequential benefits from the date they completed two years of service is untenable. Seniority is always governed by statutory rules and the date of entry into service of a particular cadre. The petitioners were inducted into the School Education Department only upon completion of eight years of service under the 2018 policy. Seniority cannot be remodelled to accommodate their claim, as doing so would not only contravene the Rules of 2018 but also create administrative and structural anomalies in the cadre. 34. Having considered the rival submissions, examined the policy decisions, and applied the settled principles of judicial review, this Court finds no arbitrariness, discrimination, illegality, or irrationality in the policy decision dated 23.07.2020. The said policy is a valid exercise of the State Government’s executive discretion and does not infringe any rights of the petitioners. 35. Accordingly, the petitioners are not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed. The prayers seeking 18 notional absorption from the date of completion of two years of service, re-fixation of seniority, re- determination of pay scale, and parity with teachers absorbed under the 2020 policy are wholly devoid of merit and deserve to be rejected.” They further submitted that since the facts and issue involved in the present cases are identical to that of WPS No.1389/2021 and analogous cases, these writ petitions may also be disposed off 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 these petitions are identical to WPS No.1389/2021 and analogous cases, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WPS No.1389/2021 and analogous cases. 5. Accordingly, the present writ petitions being WPS Nos.1982/2023, 2251/2023, 2158/2023, 2763/2023 and 2843/2023 are dismissed in terms of the order dated 28.11.2025 passed in WPS No.1389/2021 and analogous cases. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh