1 2026:CGHC:2870 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3443 of 2023 Sarojbala Tandan W/o Shri E.K. Tandan, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Plot No.222, Street No.5, Vanshi Vihar Colony, Borsi, District : Durg, 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 Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Block Education Officer Charama, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashwin Panicker, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shahil Singh, Panel Lawyer SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY DN: cn=SHYNA AJAY, o=PERSONAL, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 16/01/2026 1. By way of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : 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 12.7.2010 in the Department of School Education from 01.07.2018 as granted by the Respondent Authorities to Anju Patnaik who joined on 12.7.2010, to Devashwari Dewangan who joined on 12.7.2010 and to Usha Nirala who joined on 13.7.2010 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. 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. 2. 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 Middle School, Bodi, Development Block Geedam. By the same appointment order, several others were also appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade–II. The Petitioner joined her place of posting on 12.07.2010. Thereafter, by order dated 06.03.2013, the Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat Dantewada, declared the Petitioner’s probation to be completed on 12.07.2012. In the same order, the probation of several other similarly placed employees was also declared complete on various dates in July 2012. 3. Subsequently, by order dated 30.06.2018, Respondent No.1 issued 3 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 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, District 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. 4. 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 12.07.2018, also submitted a 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 4 authorities. Hence, the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner completed 8 years of service after absorption in the School Education of Department on 12.7.2018. However, the benefit of absorption has been granted to him w.e.f. 1.7.2019, whereas, in light of the subject Circular(s)/Order(s) issued by the State Government, the said benefit ought to have been granted w.e.f. 1.1.2019. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent/State would not dispute the Circulars/Orders, in terms of which, 1st of January of the concerned year and 1st of July of the concerned year have been fixed as the relevant dates for grant of absorption to the concerned employee. Accordingly, since the petitioner had completed 8 years of service on 12.7.2018, she is required to be given benefit of absorption from 1.1.2019. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival contentions and perused the material available with the writ petition with utmost circumspection. 8. 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. 9. It stands admitted that the Petitioner completed eight years of continuous service on 12.07.2018. 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. 10.Despite such clear stipulation, the Respondents proceeded to grant 5 absorption to the Petitioner only with effect from 01.07.2019 vide order dated 08.08.2019, whereas the Petitioner, having 8 completed eight years on 12.07.2018, 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. 11. 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. 12.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. 13.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 12.07.2018, 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. 14.With the aforesaid observations / directions, instant writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay