1 2026:CGHC:19514-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 344 of 2026 Chatur Singh Rajput S/o Late Brijlal Rajput Aged About 61 Years 5 Months, R/o- Village- Kosmanda, Post- Jhirauni, P.S.- Pipariya, Distt- Kabirdham (Kawardha) (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Engineer In Chief Directorate Public Health Engineering Department, New Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chief Engineer Public Health Engineering Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Superintending Engineer of (Administration) Office Engineer-In- Chief, Public Health Engineering Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Executive Engineer Public Health Department, Kabirdham, Near Mahamaya Mandir, In Front of Bisen Hospital, Kawardha, Tahsil And District Kabirdham (C.G.) 6 - Assistant Engineer Public Health Department, Kabirdham, Near Mahamaya Mandir, In Front of Bisen Hospital, Kawardha, Tahsil And District Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Ms. Reena Singh, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Praveen Das, Additional Advocate General ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.04.28 17:04:34 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 28.04 .2026 1. Heard Ms. Reena Singh, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State. 2. By way of this writ appeal, appellant has prayed for following relief(s):- “1. It is therefore, prayed that this Court of Hon'ble Division Bench may kindly be pleased to allow this writ appeal and set-aside the order dated 19.02.2026 passed by Hon'ble Single bench in W.P. (S) 3503/2019. 2. That, this Hon'ble Court may further please to direct the concerned respondent по.3 to regularize the appellant/petitioner on the post of Hand Pump Helper and provide him all consequential benefits with regard to his service. 3. That, this Hon'ble Court may further please to decide the case of appellant/petitioner mercifully looking to his Three Decades of unblemished work and upcoming retirement date-10.10.2026. 4. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also be awarded along-with the cost of the petition, in the interest of justice.” 3 3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 19.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.3503/2019 and other connected matters, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner has been dismissed. 4. The brief facts projected before the learned Single Judge were that the appellant/writ petitioner has been working as a Helper in the respondent department under PHE Sub-Division, Kawardha since 01.02.1996 and has continuously discharged his duties without any break in service, though proper attendance has not been maintained by the authorities. Despite rendering more than 20 years of service as a Hand Pump Helper, his services have not been regularized in terms of the circular dated 05.03.2008. The appellant had earlier approached the Lokayukta, pursuant to which directions were issued on 21.09.2015 for engagement on daily wages and consideration for regularization subject to eligibility. An enquiry report dated 29.07.2016 also recommended his regularization as a Class-IV employee. 5. Earlier, the appellant had filed WPS No. 5200/2016, which was disposed of on 19.11.2018 directing consideration of his case; however, the respondents rejected his claim by the impugned order without proper scrutiny, leading to filing of the present petition. 6. Being aggrieved by the said action, the appellant/writ petitioner preferred the writ petition bearing WPS No.3503/2019 before the 4 learned Single Judge, which was dismissed of vide order dated 19.02.2026 with other connected matters on the similar issue. 7. Calling in question the legality and propriety of the order dated 19.02.2026, the appellant/writ petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 19.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge is perverse and unsustainable in law, as the petition of the appellant has been erroneously dismissed by clubbing it with other cases and by adjudicating the claim with reference to the post of Hand Pump Technician, whereas the appellant had specifically sought regularization on the post of Hand Pump Helper (Class-IV). It is further submitted that the finding regarding lack of requisite qualification under the Recruitment Rules, 2016 for the post of Hand Pump Technician is wholly irrelevant to the appellant’s case. 9. It is contended that though the learned Single Judge observed that the case of the appellant could be considered for the post of Hand Pump Helper, the writ petition was decided without ascertaining the existing vacancy position, despite the availability of vacancy list published in October, 2025. It is further submitted that the appellant has been continuously working since 1995–96 for nearly three decades, is at the verge of retirement on 10.10.2026, and has been paid wages through bank account, yet 5 his claim for regularization has been arbitrarily denied in disregard of the circular dated 05.03.2008, the order dated 21.09.2015, the enquiry report dated 29.07.2016, and the earlier order dated 19.11.2018 passed in WPS No. 5200/2016. 10. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned order, insofar as it rejects the claim of the appellant on the ground of ineligibility for the post of Hand Pump Technician, is wholly misconceived and cannot be sustained for denying regularization on the post of Hand Pump Helper, for which the appellant is otherwise eligible in all respects, and therefore the same deserves to be set aside. 11. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner and submits that the impugned order dated 19.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge is well reasoned and does not call for any interference. It is contended that the appellant’s case was duly considered by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable Recruitment Rules, 2016, and it has been rightly found that he does not possess the requisite educational qualification for regular appointment. It is further submitted that no vested right accrues in favour of the appellant for regularization merely on the basis of long continuance in service, particularly when such engagement was on daily wage basis and dehors the statutory rules. The State counsel contends that the circular dated 05.03.2008 does not confer an automatic right of regularization 6 and is subject to fulfillment of eligibility criteria as well as availability of sanctioned posts. It is also submitted that the appellant’s claim was considered along with similarly situated persons and has been rejected on valid and legal grounds, and therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly upheld the same. Hence, it is urged that the present appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as materials available on record. 13. After appreciating the submissions of learned counsel for the parties as also the materials on record, learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order while deciding batch of writ petitions, in following terms:- “5. A careful perusal of the record would show that the case of the petitioners was considered against the 16 vacant posts of Hand Pump Technician and by the impugned orders, the competent authority has clearly recorded a finding that the petitioners do not have the requisite educational qualification for the post of Hand Pump Technician as per the Rules of 2016 and thereafter, proceeded to rejected the applications of the petitioners, which is absolutely in accordace with law. So far as the contention made by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned that the case of the petitioners could have been considered for 7 the post of Hand Pump Helper, it has nowhere been brought on record that the post of Hand Pump Helper is lying vacant for which petitioners’ case can be considered. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in these writ petitions. 6. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).” 14. A plain reading of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge would reveal that the claim of the appellant/writ petitioner has been duly considered in the backdrop of the applicable Recruitment Rules, 2016 and the material placed on record, and the learned Single Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the competent authority had already examined the cases of the petitioners against the available posts and recorded a categorical finding regarding non-fulfilment of the requisite educational qualifications. The rejection of the claim, therefore, cannot be said to be arbitrary or dehors the statutory framework so as to warrant interference in exercise of intra-court appellate jurisdiction. 15. It is well settled that regularization cannot be claimed as a matter of right merely on the basis of long continuance in service, particularly when the initial engagement is not in accordance with the prescribed recruitment rules. In the present case, though the appellant has emphasized his long tenure and the fact that he has 8 worked for several years, the same, by itself, does not confer any indefeasible right to seek regularization dehors the statutory provisions or in absence of fulfilment of eligibility criteria. 16. Insofar as the contention of the appellant that his case ought to have been considered for the post of Hand Pump Helper is concerned, the learned Single Judge has rightly observed that no material was placed on record to demonstrate availability of any sanctioned vacant post for such consideration. Even otherwise, the direction for regularization can be issued only when there exists a sanctioned post and the incumbent satisfies the eligibility conditions prescribed therefor. In absence of such foundational facts, no positive direction for regularization could have been granted. 17. This Court also finds that the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration all relevant aspects of the matter, including the earlier round of litigation and the directions issued therein, and has thereafter declined interference upon finding that the decision of the competent authority does not suffer from illegality, perversity or procedural impropriety. The scope of interference in an intra-court appeal being limited, this Court does not find any compelling ground to take a different view. 18. Consequently, in view of the foregoing analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 19.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for any 9 interference. The writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. 19. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu