1 2026:CGHC:5319 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 323 of 2023 1 - Vivek Dhruwey S/o Shri Sumer Singh Dhruwey Aged About 40 Years Working As Lecturer (L.B.) And Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Sankara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh 2 - Priti Bala Sahu D/o Shri Dori Lal Sahu Aged About 44 Years Working As Lecturer (L.B.) And Posted At Govt. Highschool Patora, Block Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Nidhi Jhawar D/o Shri P. C. Nagori Aged About 43 Years Working As Lecturer (L.B.) And Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Marra, Block Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - C. Geeta D/o Shri C. Subramaniyam Aged About 35 Years Working As Lecturer (L.B.) And Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Marra, Block Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - Yamini Nayak D/o Late Shri Punarad Ram Nayak Aged About 35 Years Working As Lecturer (L.B.) And Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Marra, Block Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - Kanchanlata Sahu W/o Shri Kamlesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 47 Years Working As Lecturer (L.B.) And Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Limora, Block Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh 7 - Yogita Devi Tikariha D/o Shri Onkarnath Tikaiha Aged About 45 Years Working As Lecturer (L.B.) And Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Achoud, Block Gunderdehi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh 8 - Avantika Tamaskar W/o Shri Abhijit Tamaskar Aged About 42 Years Working As Lecturer (L.B.) And Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Limora, Block Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh 9 - Jaspreet Kaur Gill D/o Shri Jora Singh Gill Aged About 45 Years Working As Lecturer (L.B.) And Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Achoud, Block Gunderdehi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 10 - Lukesh Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Jivrakhan Lal Sahu Aged About 43 Years Working As Lecturer (L.B.) And Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Devri (Kh), Block Gunderdehi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh 11 - Tumanlal Sen S/o Shri Bhagwat Lal Sen Aged About 36 Years Working As Lecturer (L.B.) And Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Deorikh, Block Gunderdehi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh 12 - Ruchita Chourasia W/o Shri Shiv Kumar Chourasia Aged About 40 Years Working As Lecturer (L.B.) And Posted At Govt. Middle School Suregaon, Block Doundilohara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh 13 - Tarni Deshmukh W/o Shri Pushpendra Deshmukh Aged About 34 Years Working As Lecturer (L.B.) And Posted At Govt. Middle School Suregaon, Block Doundilohara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh 14 - Neelam Dewangan D/o Shri Parasram Dewangan Aged About 42 Years Working As Lecturer (L.B.) And Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Muktidham Ramnagar, Bhilai, Block Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 15 - Mrinal Dhabe D/o Shri Chandrakant Dhabe Aged About 40 Years Working As Lecturer (L.B.) And Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Kalangpur, Block Gunderdehi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh 16 - Brajkishor Madhukar S/o Shri Prabhulal Aged About 35 Years Working As Lecturer (L.B.) And Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Basin, Block Gurur, District Balod, Chhattisgarh 17 - Tilesh Sahare W/o Shri Rahul Sahare Aged About 34 Years Working As Lecturer (L.B.) And Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Bhediya Nawagaon, Block Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh 18 - Anjana Prasad W/o Dr. Manojkumar Aged About 47 Years Working As Lecturer (L.B.) And Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Girhola, Block Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 19 - Rashmi Malviya D/o Shri Bhagwat Prasad Malviya Aged About 42 Years Working As Lecturer (L.B.) And Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Kalangpur, Block Gunderdehi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh 20 - Tulsi Sati D/o Mohan Chandra Sati Aged About 46 Years Working As Lecturer (L.B.) And Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Ghughuwa (K), Block Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 21 - Deepali Pal W/o Shri Dhananjay Pal Aged About 39 Years Working As Lecturer (L.B.) And Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Rahud, Block Gunderdehi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh 22 - Geeta Gajbhiye W/o Shri Surendra Gajbhiye Aged About 42 Years Working As Lecturer (L.B.) And Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Achoud, Block Gunderdehi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh 23 - Shashi Ghritlahre D/o Reshamlal Ghritlahare Aged About 37 Years Working As Lecturer (L.B.) And Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Haldi, Block Dondilohara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh 24 - Khemin Bai Thakur W/o Shri Hemant Kumar Thakur Aged About 37 Years Working As Lecturer (L.B.) And Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Bhel Nawagaon, District Balod, Chhattisgarh 25 - Ramkali Khurshyam W/o Shri Sitesh Kumar Khurshyam Aged About 36 Years Working As Lecturer (L.B.) And Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Pondi, Block Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh 26 - Sunita Agrawal D/o Shri Surajchand Agrawal Aged About 50 Years Working As Lecturer (L.B.) And Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Bhategaon(R), District Balod, Chhattisgarh 27 - Leela Prajapati W/o Shri Sunil Kumar Prajapati Aged About 40 Years Working As Lecturer (L.B.) And Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Selud (No. 2), Block Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 28 - Sujatha Vijay Kumar W/o Shri G. Vijay Kumar Aged About 53 Years Working As Lecturer (L.B.) And Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Devri Kh, Block Gunderdehi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh 29 - Rameshwari Netam W/o Shri Laxman Ram Netam Aged About 35 Years Working As Lecturer (L.B.) And Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Pantora, Block Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 30 - Bhadrashila Tande D/o Shri Ajeet Kumar Tande Aged About 37 Years Working As Lecturer (L.B.) And Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Bhatagaon(R) Block Gunderdehi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh 31 - Bhavna Sharma D/o Shri Ganesh Pal Sharma Aged About 37 Years Working As Lecturer (L.B.) And Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Ghughuwa (K), Block Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 32 - Kalpana Acharya W/o Shri A. Chandrashekhar Rao Aged About 42 Years Working As Lecturer (L.B.) And Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Muktidham Ramnagar, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 33 - Hemlata Dhote W/o Hemant Dhote Aged About 44 Years Working As Lecturer (L.B.) And Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Piparchhedi, Block Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh 34 - Nishi Verma W/o Shri Rajesh Kumar Verma Aged About 36 Years Working As Lecturer (L.B.) And Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Marra, Block Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 35 - Savita Rajput W/o Ashok Rajput Aged About 44 Years Working As Lecturer (L.B.) And Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Palari, Block Gurur, District Balod, Chhattisgarh 36 - Kalpana Verma W/o Yogesh Kumar Verma Aged About 39 Years Working As Lecturer (L.B.) And Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Marra, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 37 - Sudipta Biswas D/o Late Shri H. K. Das Aged About 49 Years Working As Lecturer (L.B.) And Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Dewada, Block Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 38 - Yamini Sahu W/o Mr. Lokesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 37 Years Working As Lecturer (L.B.) And Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Gureda, Block Gunderdehi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh 39 - Sweta Dewangan W/o Shri Ravi Lal Dewangan Aged About 36 Years Working As Lecturer (L.B.) And Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Gureda, Block Gunderdehi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh 40 - Vimla Devi Dhruw D/o Shri Rajaram Mandawi Aged About 44 Years Working As Lecturer (L.B.) And Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Gureda, Block Gunderdehi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh 41 - Arati Singh W/o Shri Anand Prakash Singh Aged About 43 Years Working As Lecturer (L.B.) And Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Ghughuwa (K), Block Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 42 - Preeti Awasthi D/o Shri D. P. Awasthi Aged About 44 Years Working As Lecturer (L.B.) And Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Nipani, Block Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 2 - Secretary Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Director Directorate Of Chhattisgarh Public Instruction Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate For State : Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 30/01/2026 1. The present writ petition is being filed seeking following reliefs:- “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash rejection order dated 06.08.2021 (Annexure P-1) and petitioners may be granted benefit of absorption from 1st January 2019 or from the date of completion of two years of service as per circular dated 23.07.2020 (Annexure P-6) with all consequential benefit, in the interest of justice. (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to held that part circular dated 02.07.2018 which provides for absorption of Teacher (Cadre) who completed 8 years of service before 01.07.2019 to be absorbed from 1st July 2019 in view of subsequent circular dated 23.07.2020, in the interest of justice. (iii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 6 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the respondent No.1, vide order dated 30.06.2018, issued directions for absorption of Teacher Panchayat/Nagri Nikay employees into the School Education Department on completion of eight years of service, along with a clarification dated 13.07.2018 that in cases where an employee, after obtaining NOC, joined a higher post, the service would be counted from the date of joining the lower post. Further, by order dated 02.07.2018 issued in the name and under the orders of the Governor of the State of Chhattisgarh, it was decided that absorption orders would be issued twice every year, i.e., on 1st January and 1st July. Accordingly, teachers completing eight years of service as on 1st July were entitled to absorption on that date, and others on 1st January, and several teachers were absorbed in this manner. The petitioners completed their requisite eight years of service between July 2018 and December 2018 and were thus entitled to absorption w.e.f. 01.01.2019; however, they were actually absorbed only on 01.07.2019, resulting in loss of six months’ salary and seniority without any fault on their part. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed Writ Petition (S) No.1843/2021, wherein this Court directed consideration of their representations, pursuant to which representations were submitted but were ultimately rejected by order dated 06.08.2021, leading to filing of Contempt Case No.482/2022. The rejection is unsustainable as similarly situated teachers were granted absorption in accordance 7 with the circular dated 02.07.2018. Moreover, the State Government subsequently issued a circular dated 23.07.2020 providing for absorption even on completion of two years of service, which was not considered while passing the impugned order, despite the petitioners having completed eight years of service prior to 01.01.2019, thereby entitling them to absorption from 01.01.2019 or at least from the date of completion of two years of service. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned action of the respondents is arbitrary, unconstitutional, discriminatory, and unsustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that all the petitioners completed eight years of continuous service between July 2018 and December 2018 and were, therefore, entitled to absorption in the School Education Department w.e.f. 01.01.2019 in terms of the policy and circular dated 02.07.2018. However, the petitioners were actually absorbed only on 01.07.2019, i.e., after an unjustified delay of six months, resulting in loss of salary, seniority, and other consequential benefits, without any fault on their part. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners were constrained to file Writ Petition (S) No.1843/2021, wherein this Court was pleased to direct the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioners within a stipulated period. In compliance with the said directions of this Court, the petitioners submitted detailed representations claiming absorption from the due date in accordance with the 8 prevailing policy. It is submitted that when no decision was taken on the representations, the petitioners were compelled to file Contempt Case No.482/2022, pursuant to which notices were issued, and only thereafter the respondents rejected the representations by order dated 06.08.2021. Learned counsel submits that the grounds mentioned in the rejection order are wholly unsustainable, as several similarly situated Teacher (Panchayat) Cadre employees have been absorbed after completion of eight years of service in terms of the circular dated 02.07.2018, which specifically provides for absorption on 1st January and 1st July each year. Denial of the same benefit to the petitioners, despite their completion of eight years of service prior to 01.07.2019, amounts to hostile discrimination. Consequently, the impugned rejection order and the action of the respondents are liable to be quashed. It is further submitted that the State Government subsequently issued another circular dated 23.07.2020, whereby even Teacher (Panchayat) Cadre employees who had completed only two years of service were granted absorption in the School Education Department. In view of the said liberalized policy, the petitioners, who had completed eight years of service much prior to 01.01.2019, are entitled to at least similar, if not greater, benefits. Learned counsel contends that while passing the impugned order dated 06.08.2021, the respondents failed to consider the subsequent circular dated 23.07.2020, and had the same been duly considered, the 9 petitioners would have been absorbed either from 01.01.2019 or at least from the date of completion of two years of service. It is further submitted that the State Government, as per its policy decision dated 01.07.2018 and circular dated 02.07.2018, provided for absorption of Teacher (Panchayat) Cadre on completion of eight years of service on 1st January and 1st July of each year. However, despite the petitioners having been appointed in July 2010 and having completed eight years of service prior to 01.01.2019, they were wrongly absorbed belatedly on 01.07.2019, which is arbitrary and discriminatory. Learned counsel submits that the subsequent circular dated 23.07.2020 (Annexure P-6), providing for absorption on completion of only two years of service, further strengthens the claim of the petitioners for absorption from 01.01.2019, as they satisfy a much higher eligibility criterion. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that the writ petition be allowed and appropriate directions be issued in favour of the petitioners in the interest of justice. 4. Learned State Counsel submits that the petitioners were initially appointed and working as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III under their respective Janpad Panchayats. In accordance with the policy decision of the State Government, Department of School Education, their services were duly absorbed in the School Education Department as Assistant Teacher (LB) w.e.f. 01.07.2019. Subsequently, claiming that they had completed eight 10 years of service between July 2018 and December 2018, the petitioners submitted representations seeking absorption w.e.f. 01.01.2019 and thereafter filed Writ Petition (S) No.1843/2021. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 23.03.2021, granting liberty to the petitioners to submit a detailed representation and directing respondent Nos.1 and 3 to take an appropriate decision thereon within a stipulated period. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners submitted representations claiming absorption from January 2019. Learned State Counsel further submits that in compliance with the order dated 23.03.2021 passed by this Court, the case of the petitioners was duly examined by the competent authority, and after careful consideration, respondent No.4 rejected the representations vide order dated 06.08.2021 (Annexure P-1) on the ground that the claim raised by the petitioners was contrary to the prevailing absorption policy, which provides for absorption on completion of eight years of service w.e.f. 01.07.2019. It is submitted that the State Government, School Education Department, had issued an order dated 30.06.2018 regarding absorption of Shiksha Karmis on completion of eight years of service as Assistant Teacher/Teacher (LB) under ‘T’ and ‘E’ cadre, wherein the cut-off date for calculation of absorption was fixed as 01.07.2018. In the present case, the petitioners completed eight years of service between July 2018 and December 2018, i.e., after the prescribed cut-off date of 01.07.2018, and therefore, their cases could not be 11 considered for absorption w.e.f. 01.07.2018. Learned State Counsel further submits that the State Government issued Absorption Instruction No.2 vide order dated 02.07.2018, whereby it was directed that teachers who had completed eight years of service on or before 01.07.2019 would be absorbed accordingly. In compliance with the said instructions, the services of the petitioners were duly considered and absorbed w.e.f. 01.07.2019 vide orders dated 01.07.2019 and 25.07.2019 passed by the competent authorities. It is further submitted that after completion of eight years of service, the petitioners’ services were lawfully absorbed in the School Education Department w.e.f. 01.07.2019, and pursuant thereto, the petitioners joined their respective posts of Assistant Teacher (LB) at their places of posting. Having accepted the terms and conditions of absorption and joined the posts without protest, the petitioners are estopped from now claiming absorption from an earlier date with consequential benefits. The respondents have acted strictly in accordance with the policy and have not committed any arbitrariness or illegality in fixing the date of absorption. Learned State Counsel therefore submits that the impugned action and order are legal, valid, and in consonance with the policy framework governing absorption, and the petitioners have failed to make out any case warranting interference by this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a detailed list of the petitioners indicating their respective dates of joining 12 and the dates on which each of them has completed eight years of continuous service. The said list has been filed to place the correct and complete factual position before this Court and to dispel any ambiguity with regard to the service particulars of the petitioners. For the sake of clarity, convenience, and ready reference, the relevant details as furnished by the learned counsel are reproduced hereinbelow: Sr. No. Name of Petitioners Date of appointment Date of Joining Completion date of 8 years 1 Vivek Dhurwey 07.07.2010 20.07.2010 20.07.2018 2 Dr. Preeti Awasthi 29.09.2010 04.10.2010 04.10.2018 3 Tuman Lala Sen 07.07.2010 09.07.2010 09.07.2018 4 Avantika Tamaskar 07.07.2010 20.07.2010 20.07.2018 5 Smt. Tarini Deshmukh 29.09.2010 14.10.2010 14.10.2018 6 Sujata Vijay Kumar 06.07.2010 08.07.2010 08.07.2018 7 Anjana Prasad 06.07.2010 07.07.2010 07.07.2018 8 Priti Bala 06.07.2010 09.07.2010 09.07.2018 9 Mrs. Yamini Sahu 06.07.2010 10.07.2010 10.07.2018 10 Ramkalee Khurshyam 28.06.2010 02.07.2010 02.07.2018 11 Sudipta Biswas 06.07.2010 08.07.2010 08.07.2018 12 Deepali Pal 07.07.2010 13.07.2010 13.07.2018 13 Mrs. Shweta Dewangan 07.07.2010 19.07.2010 19.07.2018 14 Kalpana Verma 05.07.2010 07.07.2010 07.07.2018 15 Hemlata Dhote 29.09.2010 01.10.2010 01.10.2018 16 Savita Rajpoot 07.07.2010 14.07.2010 07.07.2018 17 Jaspreet Kaur 06.07.2010 08.07.2010 08.07.2018 18 C. Geeta 07.07.2010 13.07.2010 13.07.2018 19 Aarti Singh 06.07.2010 08.07.2010 08.07.2018 20 Bhardrashila 07.07.2010 09.07.2010 09.07.2018 13 Deshmukh 21 Nishi Verma 07.07.2010 12.07.2010 12.07.2018 22 Kanchan Lata Sahu 29.09.2010 13.10.2010 13.10.2018 23 Braijkishor Madhukar 05.07.2010 12.07.2010 12.07.2018 24 Yogita Devi 07.07.2010 12.07.2010 12.07.2018 25 Lukesh Kumar Sahu 25.11.2010 28.11.2010 28.11.2018 26 Geeta Surendra Gajbhiye 07.07.2010 14.07.2010 14.07.2018 27 Smt. Leela Prajapati 07.07.2010 20.07.2010 20.07.2018 28 Smt. Rameshwari Netam 07.07.2010 12.07.2010 12.07.2018 29 Tulsi Sati 06.07.2010 07.07.2010 07.07.2018 30 Smt. Tilesh Sahare 06.07.2010 14.07.2010 14.07.2018 31 Bhavna Sharma 06.07.2010 07.07.2010 07.07.2018 32 Nidhi Jhawar 06.07.2010 07.07.2010 07.07.2018 33 Mrs. Mrinal Dhabe 05.07.2010 10.07.2010 10.07.2018 34 Yamini Nayak 06.07.2010 12.07.2010 12.07.2018 35 Mrs. Rashmi Malviya 07.07.2010 12.07.2010 12.07.2018 36 Ruchita Chourasia 29.09.2010 08.10.2010 08.10.2018 37 Neelam Dewangan 29.09.2010 12.10.2010 12.10.2018 38 Kalpana Acharya 29.09.2010 04.10.2010 04.10.2018 39 Sunita Agrawal 07.07.2010 19.07.2010 19.07.2018 40 Khemin Thakur 07.07.2010 14.07.2010 14.07.2018 41 Vimla Devi Dhruw 07.07.2010 09.07.2010 09.07.2018 42 Shashi Ghritlahre 07.07.2010 19.07.2010 19.07.2018 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned State counsel at length and has carefully perused the pleadings, documents placed on record, and the policy decisions governing absorption of Teacher (Panchayat)/Shiksha Karmi employees into the School Education Department. 14 7. The core grievance of the petitioners is that despite having completed eight years of service between July 2018 and December 2018, they were granted absorption only w.e.f. 01.07.2019 instead of 01.01.2019, thereby allegedly depriving them of seniority, pay, and other consequential benefits. The petitioners have also assailed the rejection order dated 06.08.2021 on the ground that it is arbitrary and passed without due consideration of the governing circulars, particularly the circular dated 02.07.2018 and the subsequent circular dated 23.07.2020. 8. On the other hand, the stand of the State is that the absorption of the petitioners w.e.f. 01.07.2019 was strictly in accordance with the prevailing policy, that the petitioners completed eight years of service after the cut-off date of 01.07.2018, and that having accepted the absorption and joined their respective posts, they are estopped from claiming absorption from an earlier date. 9. From the record, it is evident that the policy framework relating to absorption has undergone changes from time to time. The order dated 30.06.2018 and the circular dated 02.07.2018 contemplate absorption of eligible teachers on fixed dates, namely 1st January and 1st July. Subsequently, the State Government issued another circular dated 23.07.2020, further liberalizing the policy by providing for absorption on completion of two years of service. 15 10. This Court is of the considered opinion that the controversy raised by the petitioners primarily involves factual determination regarding the exact date of completion of eight years of service by each petitioner and the applicability of the relevant circulars to their individual cases. Such factual verification, including examination of service records, appointment orders, and continuity of service, is best undertaken by the competent authority rather than by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. It is also apparent that while rejecting the representations of the petitioners vide order dated 06.08.2021, the competent authority has not specifically recorded a detailed finding after verifying the individual service particulars of the petitioners, nor has it examined the impact, if any, of the subsequent circular dated 23.07.2020 on the claim raised by them. In these circumstances, this Court does not find it appropriate to straightaway quash the impugned order and grant absorption from a retrospective date. However, at the same time, the petitioners cannot be non-suited without affording them a proper consideration of their claim in accordance with law and policy. 12. Accordingly, considering the aforesaid aspects, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the State/respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioners and to verify whether the petitioners have completed eight years of service as stated by 16 them. If, upon such verification, the claim of the petitioners is found to be correct, the same shall be duly considered, and appropriate orders in respect of absorption shall be passed in accordance with law, keeping in view the relevant circulars applicable at the relevant point of time. 13. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the competent authority within a reasonable period, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioners, which shall be decided independently by the authorities. 14. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE