1 2026:CGHC:13658-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2338 of 2026 1 - Union Of India Through Secretary, Department Of Human Resources And Development, Central Secretariat, New Delhi. 2 - The Director, Government Of India, Ministry Of Personnel, Public Grievance And Pensions And Department Of Personnel And Training, Khan Market, New Delhi. 3 - The Deputy Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (Ministry Of Human Resource, Development, Department Of Education), Regional Office- 160, Zone- Ii, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (M.P.)- 462011 (Address Wrongly Mentioned In Original Application- Regional Office M I G 172/2 A, Saket Nagar, Bhopal (Mp)- 462024. 4 - The Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Dongargarh At Post- Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon C.G.- 492015. 5 - The Assistant Commissioner (S.A.) Navodaya Vidyalaya Raipur, At Post Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 492015. (Address Wrongly Mentioned In Original Application- Regional Office M I G 172/2 A, Saket Nagar, Bhopal (Mp)- 462024. 6 - The Deputy Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti Department Of School Education And Literacy, Government Of India, Regional Office, A-135/a, Alkapuri, Habibganj, Bhopal (M.P.)- 462024 (Address Wrongly Mentioned In Original Application- Regional Office M I G 172/2 A, Saket Nagar, Bhopal (Mp)- 462024. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Ashok Kumar Nag S/o Late Dr. Sahu Aged About 51 Years Working As Chowkidar, Qr. No. 36, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon C.G.- 495677. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 For Petitioners : Mr. Palash Tiwari, Advocate (Division Bench) (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Order On Board 23.03.2026 Per; Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge 1. The present Writ Petition has been preferred by the Petitioners assailing the order dated 26.09.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Circuit Sitting at Bilaspur, in O.A. No. 641/2022, whereby the Tribunal has been pleased to direct the Petitioners to consider the Respondent’s claim for regularization of service. Hence, the present petition seeking following reliefs : “10.1. That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner for its kind perusal. 10.2 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 26.09.2025 passed by the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal, in O.A. No. 641/2022 (Annexure P/1). 3 10.3 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief that it deems fit in the interest of justice. 10.4 Cost of petition may also be given.” 2. Facts of the case, in brief, is that the respondent was initially engaged as a daily wager in the capacity of Electrician-cum- Plumber (ECP) by Petitioner No. 4 on 23.07.1997 on collectorate rates. The said engagement was purely temporary and contractual in nature, made without following any prescribed recruitment process under the applicable service rules. It is pertinent to note that the terms of engagement explicitly stipulated that such temporary employment would not confer any right upon the Respondent to claim regular appointment in the establishment of the Petitioners, and that his services were liable to be terminated at any time without assigning any reason and without prior notice. It is further submitted that the Government of India, vide Office Memorandum dated 10.09.1993, had formulated a scheme for grant of temporary status and eventual regularization of casual workers. The said scheme was applicable only to those casual workers who were in employment as on 01.09.1993 and had completed one year of continuous service. The Respondent, having been engaged much later on 23.07.1997, was clearly not covered under the ambit of the said scheme, and therefore, could not claim any benefit thereunder. Subsequently, the post of Electrician-cum-Plumber was formally sanctioned on 17.10.2008. 4 In furtherance thereof, a regular recruitment process was initiated by the Petitioners, and an advertisement dated 02.09.2013 was issued inviting applications for the said post. The essential qualification prescribed for the post was an ITI certificate or its equivalent in the trade of Electrician or Wireman from a recognized institution. In the course of the recruitment process, the Respondent participated in the trade test along with other candidates. However, during the scrutiny conducted by the Vidyalaya Appointment Committee (VAC) on 12.10.2017, it came to light that although the Respondent had initially represented himself as possessing an ITI Electrician qualification and had produced a certificate to that effect at the time of the trade test, he later admitted that his actual qualification was ITI Instrument Mechanic and that he did not possess the requisite ITI Electrician certificate. It was further revealed that the certificate submitted by him was forged. In view of this, the VAC concluded that the Respondent was ineligible for the post of Electrician-cum-Plumber and accordingly rejected his candidature. Aggrieved by his rejection, the Respondent submitted a representation before the Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, and also approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central). Pursuant thereto, the Assistant Labour Commissioner addressed a communication dated 26.10.2017 to the Petitioners. The Petitioners, in response, submitted a detailed reply dated 13.11.2017, explaining the reasons for non-selection of the Respondent and justifying the 5 decision taken by the competent authority. Thereafter, the Respondent approached the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench (Circuit Sitting at Bilaspur), by filing Original Application No. 436/2021 seeking regularization of his services. However, the said Original Application was dismissed as withdrawn on 13.07.2021, with liberty granted to the Respondent to submit a detailed representation before the competent authority. It is submitted that without availing the liberty granted by the Tribunal and without submitting any representation before the competent authority, the Respondent once again filed a fresh Original Application being O.A. No. 641/2022 before the learned Tribunal, seeking identical relief. The said application was thus barred by the principles of res judicata and was not maintainable in law. It is further pertinent to state that the Respondent is no longer working under the Petitioners as a daily wager. He has since been engaged as a Security Guard through an outsourcing agency, namely Balaji Security Services Pvt. Ltd., which provides manpower to the Petitioners. Thus, the Respondent had ceased to be in the direct employment of the Petitioners much prior to the filing of O.A. No. 641/2022. Despite the aforesaid factual and legal position, the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Circuit Sitting at Bilaspur, vide impugned order dated 26.09.2025 passed in O.A. No. 641/2022, directed the Petitioners to consider the case of the Respondent for regularization of his services. The Tribunal proceeded on an erroneous assumption 6 that the Respondent had been continuously working under the Petitioners and was entitled to the benefit of the Office Memorandum dated 10.09.1993, while overlooking the fact that he was neither eligible under the said scheme nor in direct employment of the Petitioners. It is also submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the preliminary objections raised by the Petitioners with regard to the maintainability of the Original Application and proceeded to pass the impugned order without affording adequate opportunity to the Petitioners to file a detailed reply. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is evident that the impugned order dated 26.09.2025 suffers from serious legal infirmities, is contrary to settled principles governing public employment, and is therefore liable to be set aside by this Court. Hence, the present writ petition has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal suffers from serious errors of law and fact and is liable to be set aside. It is contended that the Tribunal has erred in allowing O.A. No. 641/2022 despite the admitted position that the Respondent was never appointed through a regular process of recruitment in accordance with the applicable rules. It is further submitted that at the time of filing of the Original Application, the Respondent was no longer in service of the Petitioners, having already been engaged through a private outsourcing agency. In such circumstances, the direction issued by the Tribunal for 7 “consideration of regularization” is wholly unsustainable and contrary to settled principles governing public employment. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the Respondent does not possess the essential educational qualification prescribed under the Recruitment Rules for the post of Electrician-cum-Plumber. It is argued that the said post mandatorily requires an ITI certificate in the trade of Electrician or Wireman from a recognized institution, whereas the Respondent admittedly holds a certificate in the trade of Instrument Mechanic. It is a settled proposition of law that a candidate who does not fulfill the minimum eligibility criteria cannot be considered for appointment, much less for regularization, and any such direction would be in teeth of the statutory rules. It is also submitted that the Respondent had participated in the regular recruitment process initiated in the year 2013 and was rightly rejected on account of his ineligibility. Having failed in the selection process, the Respondent cannot now seek to secure appointment through judicial intervention under the guise of regularization. Learned counsel further contends that the Respondent was also overage at the relevant time, being approximately 44 years of age as against the prescribed upper age limit of 40 years for the unreserved category, and no rule providing relaxation in his favour has been demonstrated. Thus, the Respondent was ineligible on multiple counts. Learned counsel places strong reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble 8 Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 wherein the Constitution Bench has categorically held that appointments made without following the due process of recruitment are illegal and cannot be regularized. It is submitted that the Respondent’s engagement was not merely irregular but wholly illegal, having been made dehors the recruitment rules and without possessing the requisite qualifications. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held that Courts cannot direct regularization of such appointments as it would violate the constitutional mandate under Articles 14 and 16. Learned counsel further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Daya Lal, reported in (2011) 2 SCC 429 has reiterated that regularization cannot be claimed as a matter of right and that it cannot be used as a mode of recruitment. Similarly, in Union of India v. Limo Devi, reported in (2021) 3 SCC 234, the Apex Court has held that employees engaged on daily-wage or outsourcing basis, without adherence to due process, do not acquire any legal right to seek regularization, and that sympathy or long years of service cannot be a ground for granting permanency. It is further contended that the Tribunal has committed a grave jurisdictional error by proceeding to adjudicate the matter on merits without first deciding the preliminary objections raised by the Petitioners regarding maintainability and limitation. Learned counsel submits that the Original Application was filed after an inordinate delay from the alleged cause of 9 action arising in the year 2013, and the same was clearly barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in D.C.S. Negi v. Union of India, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 721, wherein it has been held that the Tribunal is duty-bound to consider the question of limitation at the threshold before entertaining the matter on merits. Learned counsel further submits that the Respondent, during the pendency of the proceedings, voluntarily ceased to be associated with the Petitioners and joined a private agency, namely M/s Balaji Security Services Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, even the limited relationship of employer and employee, which may have existed earlier in the capacity of a daily wager, stood severed by his own conduct. It is argued that once the Respondent has voluntarily opted for employment under a private contractor, he cannot thereafter claim regularization against the Petitioners. It is also submitted that the direction issued by the Tribunal to “consider the claim of the Respondent for regularization” is vague, unworkable, and contrary to the administrative framework governing the Petitioners’ establishment, which does not contemplate any regularization of outsourced or daily-wage personnel. Such a direction amounts to encroachment upon the domain of the executive and is contrary to the settled limits of judicial review. Lastly, learned counsel submits that if the impugned order is allowed to stand, it would create an anomalous situation wherein 10 even persons engaged casually or through outsourcing agencies would claim parity with regularly appointed employees. This would not only undermine the sanctity of the recruitment process but would also impose an unwarranted burden on the public exchequer. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 26.09.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have also perused the documents enclosed along with the petition. 5. From perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, it is quite vivid that the Respondent herein was engaged as a daily wage employee way back in the year 1997 and had continued to render services with the department for a considerable length of time. In the Original Application, it has also been noted that although an earlier Original Application had been filed by the Respondent, the same was withdrawn with liberty to file a representation; however, no such representation was filed, and thereafter, a second Original Application came to be preferred. The learned Tribunal has duly considered this aspect and, while adjudicating the matter, has taken note of the settled legal position laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo v. Union of India, passed in SLP(C) No.5580/2024 decided on 20.12.2024, wherein directions were issued to consider the case of an employee for regularization in 11 circumstances where such employee had continued in service for a long period. 6. In the present case as well, the Respondent had admittedly rendered services for more than 19 years, which fact has not been disputed by the Petitioners. The relevant findings recorded by the learned Tribunal clearly demonstrate that the direction issued is limited in nature and only requires the Petitioners to consider the claim of the Respondent in accordance with the applicable rules, if he is otherwise found suitable and it was held as under : “9. In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that the applicant was engaged as daily wager away back in the year 1997 and continued to served with the department till 2017, as would be evident from his representation dated 03.02.2017 (Annexure A-9). It is also noted that the original application no. 436/2021 filed by the applicant was withdrawn seeking liberty to file detailed representation but the record of the OA nowhere shows that any such representation has been moved by the applicant and he has filed the present Original Application seeking similar 12 relief. It is also noted that the applicant is presently working with the department through an agency and no longer as daily wager on the role of the department and also not being paid from government fund. Be that as it may, since the applicant had continued to work with the department for more than 19 years uninterruptedly which has not been denied by the respondents, the claim of the applicant deserves consideration in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo (Supra). 10. In view of the above settled proposition of law, the Original Application No. 641/2022 is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the applicant for regularization in accordance with rules, if the applicant is otherwise found suitable, within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order.” 13 7. The aforesaid direction, upon careful consideration, makes it evident that the learned Tribunal has not granted any relief of regularization as such, nor has it adjudicated upon the merits of the claim in favour of the Respondent. The Tribunal has merely directed the competent authorities to consider the case of the Respondent for regularization in accordance with law and applicable rules, and only if he is otherwise found eligible. 8. From perusal of the said direction, it is quite apparent that no positive or mandatory direction prejudicial to the Petitioners has been issued. Rather, the authority concerned has only been required to examine the claim of the Respondent and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. Such a direction cannot be said to suffer from any illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The contentions advanced by learned counsel for the Petitioners, particularly with regard to the Respondent’s eligibility, nature of initial engagement, and applicability of the principles laid down in Uma Devi (Supra) and other judgments, pertain to the merits of the claim for regularization. All such issues are open to be considered by the competent authority while deciding the claim of the Respondent pursuant to the direction issued by the Tribunal. 9. At this stage, this Court is not required to adjudicate upon those aspects, as the Tribunal has not issued any direction for 14 straightaway regularization, but has merely directed consideration of the claim in accordance with law. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the direction issued by the learned Tribunal is just, proper, and does not call for any interference. The Petitioners are only required to consider the case of the Respondent and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with the applicable rules and settled legal principles. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merits, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge Shayna