1 2025:CGHC:58724 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3589 of 2023 1 - Bhagwati Sahu W/o Shri Udayram Sahu, Aged About 42 Years R/o C/o Omprakash Soni Ward No. 1, Adjacent To Tehsil Office Geedam District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Government Of Chhattisgarh Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh. 492002. 2 - The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Government Of Chhattisgarh Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh. 492002 3 - The Director, Directorate Of Public Instruction, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Indravati Bhavan District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The District Education Officer, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashwin Panikar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sakib Amhed, Panel Lawyer ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 03.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ashwin Panikar, learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/Respondents 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following relief(s) :- “10.1. The Hon'ble Court may call for records from the respondents. 10.2. The Hon'ble Court may issue an appropriate writ or direction on the Respondent Authorities to absorb the Petitioner who joined on 07.07.2010 in the Department of School Education from 01.07.2018 as granted by the Respondent Authorities to, UshaNirala who joined on 13.07.2010, Laxmi Rajak who joined on 07.07.2010, Anju Patnaik who joined on 12.07.2010 and Deveshwari Dewangan who joined on 12.07.2010 or in the alternative direct the Respondent Authorities to absorb the Petitioner from 01.01.2019 as per order dated 02.07.2018. 10.3. The Hon'ble Court may grant cost of petition to the Petitioner. 3 10.4. The Hon'ble Court may grant any other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the present case in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case, in nutshell, are that the Petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade–II vide order dated 29.06.2010 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat South Bastar, Dantewada, and was posted at Upper Primary School, Jhodipara Ronje. By the same appointment order, several others, namely Rajiv Mishra, Rajesh Kumar Khute, Navin Kishore Mishra, Deepti Gill, Sheela Kadiyam, Deveshwari Dewangan, Olivia Peter, Durga Devi Pataskar, Sanita Nishad, Anju Patnaik, Usha Barman, Hiraman Lal Verma, Laxmi Rajak and Binu Chandrakar, were also appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade–II. The Petitioner joined her posting on 02.07.2010. Thereafter, by order dated 06.03.2013, the Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat Dantewada, declared the Petitioner’s probation to be completed on 03.07.2012. In the same order, the probation of several other similarly placed employees was also declared complete on various dates in July 2012. 4. Subsequently, by order dated 30.06.2018, Respondent No.1 issued directions for absorption of teachers working in Panchayat/Urban bodies into the School Education Department on completion of eight years of service as on 01.07.2018. Again, by order dated 02.07.2018, Respondent No.1 clarified that teachers completing eight years of service as on 01.07.2019 4 would also be absorbed, and thereafter absorption exercises would be held on 1st January and 1st July every year. Pursuant thereto, by order dated 08.08.2019, the District Education Officer, South Bastar, Dantewada issued the absorption order with effect from 01.07.2019 in favour of the Petitioner along with several others, including Deepti Gill, Olivia Peter, Chitralekha Tiwari, Anju Patnaik, Heero Nareti, Deveshwari Dewangan, Sheela Kadiyam, Rajesh Khunte, Navin Kishore Mishra, Rajiv Mishra, Beenu Chandrakar, Durga Pataskar, Usha Nirala, Hiraman Lal Verma, Sanita Nishad and Laxmi Rajak. Some of these persons subsequently filed WPS No.1711/2022, which was disposed of on 15.03.2022 with liberty to them to submit a representation seeking absorption from an earlier date. Acting on their representation, the Joint Director, Education, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, by order dated 23.05.2022, amended their date of absorption from 01.07.2019 to 01.07.2018. 5. Similarly placed persons, namely Sunita Bara, Devaki Yadav, Malati Mishra, Vijay Lakshmi, Kumari Nagvanshi and Vimbita Nayak also approached this Hon’ble Court in WPS No.617/2023 seeking absorption from an earlier date, which was disposed of on 20.01.2023 with liberty to submit representation. Their representations were thereafter rejected, and the earlier absorption order dated 08.08.2019 was upheld by the Joint Director vide order dated 17.03.2023. The Petitioner, who had completed eight years of service on 03.07.2018, also submitted a 5 representation on 21.03.2023 before Respondent No.1 seeking absorption from an earlier date. However, the said representation is still pending consideration, whereas representations of other similarly situated persons have either been accepted or rejected by the authorities. Hence, the present writ petition. 6. Mr. Ashwin Panikar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the denial of absorption of the Petitioner from 03.07.2018 and the grant of absorption only from 01.07.2019 is in clear contravention of Respondent No.1’s orders dated 30.06.2018 and 02.07.2018, which govern the absorption of Shiksha Karmis into the School Education Department. He further submits that the Respondent authorities have acted arbitrarily in fixing the date of absorption. The order dated 02.07.2018 expressly provides that absorption exercises shall be undertaken on 1st January and 1st July of the year in which an employee completes eight years of service. Having completed eight years on 03.07.2018, the Petitioner was therefore entitled, at the latest, to absorption with effect from 01.01.2019 and not from 01.07.2019. It is contended that granting absorption only from 01.07.2019 despite the Petitioner’s eligibility from 03.07.2018 has caused and continues to cause the Petitioner loss of pecuniary benefits and wrongful prejudice to her consequential seniority. It is further contended that the authorities, by selectively accepting or rejecting representations of similarly placed employees and by altering dates of absorption without any intelligible or consistent principle, have acted arbitrarily and 6 discriminatorily vis-à-vis the Petitioner. As such, a direction be issued to the respondent authorities for (i) absorption of the Petitioner with retrospective effect from 03.07.2018 (or at the latest 01.01.2019), and (ii) consequential reliefs for payment of arrears, fixation of pay and seniority, together with costs. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Sakib Ahmed, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/Respondents, opposes the submissions of learned counsel for the Petitioner and submits that the Petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-II vide order dated 29.06.2010 (Annexure P/1) and joined on 02.07.2010. Her probation was declared complete on 03.07.2012 vide order dated 06.03.2013 (Annexure P/3), and similarly situated employees completed probation between 02.07.2012 and 12.07.2012. Respondent No.1 thereafter issued order dated 02.07.2018 for absorption of teachers completing eight years of service on or before 01.07.2019, pursuant to which the District Education Officer absorbed the Petitioner w.e.f. 01.07.2019 vide order dated 08.08.2019. It is submitted that the petition suffers from non- joinder of necessary parties, as the Petitioner seeks absorption from the same date as several similarly situated employees but has not impleaded any of them as party Respondents. Their presence is essential for proper adjudication, and therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 8. It is further submitted that the Petitioner, having accepted the terms and conditions of absorption and joined the absorbed post, 7 cannot now seek alteration of the absorption date. The amendment of absorption dates for certain employees was made only in compliance with this Court’s order dated 15.03.2022 in WPS No.1711/2022, leading to issuance of the subsequent order dated 23.05.2022 by the Joint Director, Education. As such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival contentions and perused the material available with the writ petition with utmost circumspection 10. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length, on perusal of the pleadings and the documents placed on record, and upon due consideration of the rival submissions advanced, this Court is of the considered opinion that the grievance of the Petitioner merits acceptance. 11. It stands admitted that the Petitioner completed eight years of continuous service on 03.07.2018. The governing administrative instructions issued by Respondent No.1 vide orders dated 30.06.2018 and 02.07.2018 unequivocally prescribe that absorption exercises are to be conducted on 1st January and 1st July of the year in which an employee completes eight years of service. The intention of the said scheme is to ensure uniformity, predictability, and transparency in the process of absorption and to avoid arbitrary deviations. 8 12. Despite such clear stipulation, the Respondents proceeded to grant absorption to the Petitioner only with effect from 01.07.2019 vide order dated 08.08.2019, whereas the Petitioner, having completed eight years on 03.07.2018, was entitled to be considered either on 01.07.2018 itself or, at the very latest, on 01.01.2019. This deviation from the statutory/administrative framework is not supported by any rationale, nor has any explanation been furnished regarding the discriminatory treatment meted out to the Petitioner when compared to similarly situated employees whose absorption dates were subsequently revised to 01.07.2018 by order dated 23.05.2022. 13. The selective acceptance and rejection of representations of similarly placed employees, coupled with an inconsistent and arbitrary determination of absorption dates, is violative of the principles of fairness and non-discrimination embodied in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The action of the Respondents, therefore, cannot withstand judicial scrutiny. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 08.08.2019, insofar as it pertains to the Petitioner and fixes her date of absorption as 01.07.2019, is quashed and set aside. 15. The Respondents are directed to treat the Petitioner as absorbed with effect from 01.01.2019, being the next available absorption date after completion of her eight years of service on 9 03.07.2018, and to extend all consequential benefits arising therefrom. Such consequential benefits shall include revision of seniority, re-fixation of pay, release of arrears and all other service advantages flowing from the grant of absorption from 01.01.2019. 16. With the aforesaid observations / directions, instant writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Saxena