1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Order Reserved on : 17/02/2026 Order Delivered on : 15/05/2026 WPS No. 2708 of 2014 1 - Ramu Ram Sahu And Ors. S/o Shri Belan Ram Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Mohtara, Post Latuva, P.S. Balodabazar, Distt. Balodabazar Bhatapara C.G., Chhattisgarh 2 - Manmohan Singh Sahu S/o Shri Kriparam Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Sakari, Post Amera, P.S. Balodabazar, Distt. Balodabazar C.G. , District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 3 - Prateek Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Ghasi Ram Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Village And Post Purgaon, Via Bilaigarh P.S. Balodabazar, Distt. Balodabazar Bhatapara C.G. , District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. S/o Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur C.G., Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Baloda Bazar Bhatapara C.G., District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Baloda Bazar, Distt. Baloda Bazar Bhatapara C.G. , District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.05.30 16:50:48 +0530 2 4 - The Secretary Government Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of School, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - The District Education Officer Balodabazar, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Respondent(s) For Respondent No. 3 : : Ms. Supriya Upasane, Govt. Advocate Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate Hon’ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge CAV Order 1. The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition claiming the appointment orders on the post of Assistant Teacher in the Municipal Council, Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara. The petitioners have filed the writ petition claiming the following reliefs:- 10.1. That the Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to call for the records of the case of the petitioners from the respondents. 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue suitable order/writ/ direction directing the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioners for the appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher and issue them appointment letters in the Nagar Palika Parishad, Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara. 10.3. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner together with cost of the petition. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Respondent No. 3 issued an advertisement on 17.06.2013 (Annexure P-1) for recruitment to the post of 3 Lecturer/Teacher/Assistant Teacher. The petitioners have applied for the post of Assistant Teacher (Local Bodies), considering that they possess the requisite qualifications. After scrutiny of the application forms, documents and educational qualifications, the list of eligible candidates was published. After calling the objections and resolving the same, the final list was published in which the names of the petitioners are found at Sr. No. 1, 2 and 3 in the list of Assistant Teacher (Local Bodies). However, on 29.01.2014, a meeting of the scrutiny committee was held, and another select list and wait list were prepared in which the names of the petitioners do not find place. In the said meeting, it was decided that there shall be fresh advertisements regarding five posts of Assistant Teachers (Local Bodies). Thereafter, on 25.02.2014, the petitioners moved a detailed representation to the Collector, Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, and when their representation was not considered, they filed the present writ petition. 3. Earlier, the writ petition was allowed by the coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 25.09.2024, and the respondent authorities were directed to issue appointment letters to the petitioners within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order. The order dated 25.09.2024 was challenged by the State Government by filing the Writ Appeal No. 194/2025, which is decided by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court on 09.10.2025 and by allowing the writ appeal, the order dated 25.09.2024 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to this Court for deciding the case afresh after impleading the Secretary, School Education Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, as the party respondent in the writ petition, and after providing the opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the action of the respondent authorities in not issuing appointment orders to the petitioners on the post of Assistant Teacher, despite their having participated in the selection process and having secured position within the zone of 4 consideration in the merit list, is wholly arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the petitioners possessed all the requisite educational qualifications and eligibility criteria prescribed for appointment and, therefore, denial of appointment without any justifiable reason amounts to hostile discrimination. Learned counsel would further submit that in an identical selection process undertaken by the Nagar Panchayat, Bhatgaon, appointment orders were issued in favour of similarly situated candidates, which is evident from Annexure P/5, but the petitioners alone have been denied similar treatment, thereby offending the principle of equality. It is further argued that the Deputy Director, Urban Administration and Development, vide communication dated 26.02.2014 (Annexure P/6), had specifically directed the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Baloda Bazar, to act in accordance with the directions issued in the case of Nagar Panchayat, Bhatgaon and to consider issuance of appointment orders in favour of the petitioners. However, despite such direction issued by the superior authority, no consequential action was taken by respondent No.3. Learned counsel would also submit that, instead of appointing the petitioners from the existing merit list, respondent No.3 proceeded to issue appointment orders dated 28.02.2014 (Annexure P/7) in favour of certain other candidates on the post of Assistant Teacher in different categories, thereby overlooking and bypassing the petitioners who were placed amongst the top candidates in the merit list. According to the petitioners, such action is arbitrary, mala fide in law and contrary to the settled principles governing public employment. 5. It is also submitted that the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court remitted the matter back to the learned single judge to make the Secretary, School Education Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, a party respondent and decide the case afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. Since the contention raised by the State 5 that the post of Assistant Teacher has been absorbed in the School Education Department, and therefore, the School Education Department is the necessary party to the petition, the matter is remitted back to the learned single judge with the aforesaid direction. The reply filed by the School Education Department also stated that if the petitioners succeeded in the case, the appropriate Panchayat/Local Bodies would be notionally appointed as such petitioners and thereafter, after fulfilling the necessary conditions, forwards his service book to the School Education Department for his absorption, for the reason that during the pendency of this petition, the order of absorption has been issued on 30.06.2018. Thus, the school Education Department is also in favour of the petitioners to absorb them into the Department. The writ petition has already been allowed by the learned single judge vide order dated 25.09.2024, and there is no material produced by the School Education Department that disentitled the petitioners from the relief as claimed in the petition. 6. In view to the reply submitted by the School Education Department, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that on 26.02.2014, the Joint Director issued an order directing the Chief Municipal Officer, Baloda Bazar, to issue appointment orders to the petitioners. The names of the petitioners, No. 1 Ramu Ram Sahu and No. 2 Manmohan Singh, are in the select list of OBC category candidates, and the petitioner No. 3 Prateek Kumar Sahu is in the wait list. Since Ramu Ram Sahu and Manmohan Singh would be appointed in the unreserved category, the right of Prateek Singh would be accrued for appointment in the OBC category. In the year 2019, 10 posts of Assistant Teachers were vacant for other subjects. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the entire recruitment process initiated pursuant to advertisement dated 17.06.2013, and was conducted strictly in accordance with Rule 6(1)(a) of the Chhattisgarh Shikshak (Nagariya Nikay) Samvarg (Bharti Tatha Seva Ki Sharte) Niyam, 6 2013 (in short “Rules 2013”), which permits recruitment through competitive examination, selection on merit, or such other manner as directed by the State Government, and that the scrutiny committee constituted under Rule 6(7)(a) was fully competent to undertake subject-wise categorization while recommending eligible candidates, there being no prohibition in the Rules against such exercise. It is submitted that though the Schedule for the post of Assistant Teacher does not specifically classify subjects, the category “Other” was expressly recognized in the advertisement itself and appointments under the said category had also been made earlier, including the appointment of one Shri Nishant Mishra on 09.12.2011, thereby negativing the plea of the appellants that the category “Other” was non-existent or impermissible. Learned counsel further submits that the issue regarding competence of Urban Local Bodies to make and implement such appointments already stands settled by judicial precedent, including the decisions rendered in “Mahesh Kumbhalkar v. State of Chhattisgarh” order dated 21.11.2019 in W.P. No. 3343/2009, and “Gavendra Kumar and others Vs. State of CG and another” decided on 16.04.2019 in WPS No.6551/2014 (C.G. High Court), wherein reinstatement and consequential benefits were granted to similarly situated Assistant Teachers appointed under the Urban Local Body cadre even without impleading of the School Education Department, thereby demonstrating that the Urban Local Bodies remain the competent appointing and implementing authorities. Reliance is also placed upon the communications dated 06.05.2025 and 26.05.2025, as well as Clause 9 of the Order dated 30.06.2018, to contend that merger into the School Education Department is only consequential and subject to completion of appointment or reinstatement by the original appointing authority. It is lastly argued that the RTI information supplied by the Block Education Officer, Baloda Bazar, clearly reveals the existence of sanctioned and vacant posts 7 under the subject “Other”, thereby disproving the stand of the appellants that no sanctioned vacancies were available for appointment of the petitioners. 8. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “East Coast Railway and another Vs. Mahadev Appa Rao and others” 2010 (7) SCC 678, “Dinesh Kumar Kashyap and others Vs. SECR and others” 2019 (12) SCC 798, “Shailesh Kumar Sonwane Vs. State of MP and others” 2021 SCC Online MP 5934, and “Sudhir Rajpal and others Vs. State of CG and others” decided on 20.11.2019 in W.P.S. No. 7411/2018 (C.G. High Court), to submit that once vacancies exist and the selected candidates are otherwise eligible and meritorious, the authorities cannot arbitrarily deny appointment while extending the benefit to similarly situated persons. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4 would submit that no specific relief has been claimed by the petitioners against the State authorities and, therefore, the writ petition itself is misconceived. It is further submitted that although in the tentative seniority list of Assistant Teacher, prepared after consideration of objections, the names of the petitioners were reflected at Serial Nos. 1, 2 and 3, subsequently, pursuant to the directions issued by the Joint Director, Urban Administration and Development vide communication dated 27.08.2013, an amended list was prepared and forwarded to the District Education Officer for approval on 20.12.2013. Learned counsel would further submit that thereafter the Screening Committee, in its meeting held on 29.01.2014, took a conscious decision to re-advertise five posts of Assistant Teacher (Other Subject) on the ground that the advertisement did not specify the particular subjects and the expression “Other Subject” was vague and ambiguous, which was likely to create confusion and administrative complications in future. The Committee also resolved that further action in respect of the said five posts be undertaken only after obtaining specific instructions from the Department of 8 Education. It is additionally contended that subsequently, vide communication dated 25.04.2014 (Annexure R/1), the Principal Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department directed that the selection process relating to the Teacher (Panchayat) cadre be kept in abeyance. On the strength of the aforesaid circumstances, it is argued that the petitioners have acquired no indefeasible right to appointment. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the State further submits that the State had already filed its reply on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on 31.10.2014, and the writ petition was initially allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 25.09.2024 with a direction to issue appointment letters to the petitioners within a period of 45 days. It is submitted that the State challenged the said order by filing Writ Appeal No. 194 of 2025, wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench, vide order dated 09.10.2025, remitted the matter back to the learned Single Bench with liberty to the petitioners to implead the Secretary, Department of School Education, as an additional respondent. Pursuant thereto, the Secretary, Department of School Education, was impleaded on 17.11.2025, and an additional reply has been filed on behalf of the said department. Learned counsel would further submit that under the policy/order dated 30.06.2018 issued by the Department of School Education, teachers working under Panchayat or Local Bodies, who had completed eight years of service on or before 01.07.2018, were to be absorbed in the School Education Department and thereafter treated as Teachers (Local Body). It is contended that the said policy contemplates absorption only of existing employees and not of vacant posts lying with the Panchayat or Local Bodies, and after absorption, the remaining vacant posts stand extinguished. Referring to Clause 9 of the said order, learned counsel submits that in cases where appointments relating to the Teacher (Panchayat/Local Body) cadre are sub judice, the matter would be governed by the orders passed by the competent Court. It is further argued that even if 9 the petitioners ultimately succeed, their initial notional appointment must first be made by the concerned Panchayat or Local Body pursuant to the original advertisement, and only thereafter their cases can be forwarded to the Department of School Education for absorption in accordance with the policy dated 30.06.2018. Learned counsel specifically submits that no vacant posts were ever surrendered by the Panchayat or Local Bodies to the Department of School Education and, therefore, the answering respondent can only absorb such candidates whose cases are duly forwarded by the competent Panchayat or Local Body authority. 11. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 would also oppose the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have submitted that the respondent No. 3 had undertaken the recruitment process strictly in accordance with the information and directions supplied by the competent authorities. It is submitted that vide communication dated 30.05.2013, respondent No. 3 sought necessary instructions from the District Education Officer, Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, regarding the availability of sanctioned and vacant posts of teachers. In response thereto, the District Education Officer, by letter dated 01.06.2013, furnished details of sanctioned strength, vacant posts and roster position pertaining to the district. Thereafter, respondent No. 3 issued an advertisement dated 17.06.2013 inviting applications for direct recruitment to the posts of Lecturer, Teacher and Assistant Teacher. After scrutiny of the applications received, a tentative merit/seniority list was prepared and uploaded on the official website, and objections were invited from the candidates. It is further submitted that respondent No. 3, vide communication dated 23.08.2013, informed the District Education Officer regarding convening of a meeting of the Scrutiny Committee on 24.08.2013 and, after considering and resolving the objections, the final seniority list was published on 26.09.2013, and 10 candidates were called for verification and attestation of their documents on 30.09.2013. 12. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 further submits that thereafter, the Joint Director, Urban Administration and Development, Raipur, vide letter dated 27.11.2013, directed respondent No. 3 to re-examine the documents of the candidates minutely and further instructed that appointments be made only after the election code of conduct was lifted. It is contended that during the course of scrutiny, certain discrepancies were noticed by the Screening Committee and, after rectification of the same, an amended list was prepared and forwarded to the District Education Officer for approval on 20.12.2013. The matter was thereafter placed before the Screening Committee, which, in its meeting dated 29.01.2014, resolved that five posts of Assistant Teacher be re-advertised subject-wise, since the original advertisement had not specified the concerned subjects and the posts were merely shown under the category “Others”, which was likely to create administrative complications in future, particularly at the time of promotion. It is further submitted that, upon representations made by the petitioners, the Joint Director vide order dated 26.02.2014 directed reconsideration of the application forms and further observed that the directions earlier issued in respect of Nagar Palika, Bhatgaon, would equally apply to Municipality, Baloda Bazar. However, before any further steps could be taken, the Joint Director, vide order dated 22.05.2014, stayed the process of appointment of Assistant Teachers and consequently the recruitment proceedings could not be carried forward. 13. Learned counsel also submits that during the pendency of the present writ petition, respondent No. 3, vide letter dated 19.10.2022, sought information regarding the existing vacancies and the status of the recruitment process. In response thereto, the Joint Director, Department of Urban Administration and Development, by communication dated 02.11.2022, requested the Director, Urban Administration and Development, to correspond with the Directorate of 11 Public Instructions for taking further action, inasmuch as the cadre of teachers under the Urban Local Bodies had already been merged with the School Education Department and the vacant posts stood surrendered to the said department. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel contends that no enforceable right has accrued in favour of the petitioners and, therefore, the writ petition, being devoid of substance, deserves to be dismissed. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition by the respective parties and gone through their pleadings. 15. It is relevant to take note of the fact that though this Court had earlier allowed the writ petition vide order dated 25.09.2024 directing issuance of appointment orders in favour of the petitioners, the said order did not attain finality and was subsequently set aside by the Hon’ble Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 194/2025 vide order dated 09.10.2025. While remanding the matter for fresh consideration, the Hon’ble Division Bench specifically directed impleading of the Secretary, School Education Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, in view of the subsequent policy decision dated 30.06.2018 regarding absorption of Teachers (Panchayat/Local Bodies) into the School Education Department and the consequential administrative changes affecting the cadre and posts in question. Thus, the matter was remitted for adjudication afresh in the light of the subsequent developments and after affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. 16. Pursuant to the remand order, the School Education Department has been impleaded as respondent No. 4, and detailed replies have been brought on record demonstrating that after absorption of the Teachers (Local Bodies) cadre into the School Education Department, the remaining vacant posts under the Local Bodies stood extinguished/surrendered and only those 12 employees who were already appointed and in service were entitled to be considered for absorption. The subsequent materials placed before this Court, including the communications issued by the Urban Administration and Development Department and the School Education Department, materially alter the factual and legal position that prevailed when the writ petition was earlier decided. Therefore, the earlier order dated 25.09.2024, having already been set aside by the Hon’ble Division Bench, cannot be relied upon by the petitioners as conferring any substantive or accrued right in their favour. 17. This Court, while deciding the matter afresh in terms of the remand order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench, is required to independently examine the legality of the recruitment process and the relief claimed by the petitioners in the backdrop of the statutory Rules of 2013 and the subsequent policy decisions governing the cadre. 18. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 3 issued the advertisement dated 17.06.2013 for recruitment to the posts of Lecturer, Teacher and Assistant Teacher, and the petitioners participated in the said selection process. It is also admitted that after scrutiny of applications and consideration of objections, the names of the petitioners appeared at Serial Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the final merit/seniority list. Subsequently, the Screening Committee, in its meeting dated 29.01.2014, decided to re-advertise five posts of Assistant Teacher under the category “Other Subject” on the grounds that the subjects were not specifically mentioned in the advertisement. It is further undisputed that no appointment orders were issued in favour of the petitioners, and thereafter, the recruitment process was kept in abeyance by the competent authorities. It is also admitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, the order dated 30.06.2018 regarding absorption of Teachers (Panchayat/Local Body) into the School Education Department came into force and that the earlier order passed by the learned Single Judge was set 13 aside by the Division Bench and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. 19. In the present case, the advertisement for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Local Bodies) was issued under the Rules 2013. The rules of 2013 do not provide for the post of Assistant Teacher for “other” subjects, nor is there any eligibility criteria provided for the same. The respondent No. 3, without following the provisions of the Rules of 2013, issued the advertisement and proceeded for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Local Bodies) for other subjects. Considering the aforesaid facts, the screening committee, in its meeting dated 29.01.2014, recommended a fresh advertisement for the post of Assistant Teachers (Local Bodies) with respect to the specific post name. The relevant part of the recommendation of the screening committee dated 29.01.2014 is given herein below:- “ सहायक शिक्षक (न-निन-) अन्य नि षय 05 पद क सबंध में शिक्ष f भाग स पद क स्पष्ट नमें प्राप्त कर प न! नय शिसर स आरक्षण करत हुए नि ज्ञापन जार( कर स(ध( भात) हात निनयमेंन सर में ख्य नगरपशि+क अधिधकर( बं+-दबंजार कय. हा( कर।” 20. The State Government, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Raipur, issued a memo No./Pancha.-697/Pan.Gra.Vi.Vi./22/2014/999, Naya Raipur, Dated 25.04.2014, whereby the further proceeding of appointment on the post of Teacher (panchayat) and Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) was kept in abeyance till further orders. It is necessary here to notice the memo dated 25.04.2014, which is as under:- छत्ती(सगढ़ सन पचायत ए  ग्रामें(ण नि कस नि भाग, मेंत्रा+य! मेंहानद6 भा न, नय रयप र क्र. / पचा.-697/पग्रानि नि /22/2014/999 नय रयप र, दिदनक 25-04-2014 प्रानित, 1. समेंस्त क+क्टर, छत्ती(सगढ़ 2. समेंस्त में ख्य कय.प+न अधिधकर( 14 जिजा+ पचायत – छत्ती(सगढ़ नि षय!- शिक्षक (पचायत) स ग. क कमें.चारिरय> क? निनय क्त्तिक्त्ती प्रानिक्रय स्थनिगत रखन क सबंध में। इस नि भाग क अन द कमेंक / पचा/पग्रानि नि /22/2014/125, दिदनक 19.02.2014 द्वार शिक्षक (पचायत) स ग. क कमें.चारिरय> क रिरक्त पद> पर निनय क्त्तिक्त क सबंध में दिद निनदE जार( निकय गय हाF। जिजासक प+न में सभा त! आपक जिजा+ में निनय क्त्तिक्त प्रानिकय प्रारभा हा गई हाग(। अपर में ख्य सशिचा , छत्ती(सगढ़ सन, पचायत ए  ग्रामें(ण नि कस नि भाग क अर्द्ध.सक?य पत्रा क./34/ACS/P&RD/2013, दिदनक 21.02.2014 द्वार +ख निकय गय हाI निक जिजा+> में शिक्ष नि भाग क मेंपदण्डों> क अन रूप पय.प्त सहायक शिक्षक तथा शिक्षक पदस्थ हाF। इसशि+य नय( निनय क्त्तिक्त्ती क पN . मेंपदण्डों> क प+न स निनश्चिPत कर। उल्+खन(य हाI निक प्राद में प्रायमेंर( तथा अपर प्रायमेंर( स्कN + में शिक्षक छत्रा अन पत 1:23 हाI। यदिद इसमें निनयधिमेंत शिक्षक> क भा( धिमें+ निकय जायग त यहा अन पत 1:19 हा जायग। इस प्राकर प्राद में शिक्षक> क? निनय क्त्तिक्त्ती पय.प्त सख्य में क? जा चा क? हाI। उपरक्त क्त्तिस्थनित क दृधिष्टगत रखत हुए स्कN + शिक्ष नि भाग ए  आदिदमें जानित तथा अन सNशिचात जानित नि कस नि भाग स शिक्षक (पचायत) स ग. क स् (कT त पद ए  रिरक्त पद> क पर(क्षण करय जा रहा हाI। अत! आपक जिजा+ में शिक्षक (पचायत) तथा सहायक शिक्षक (पचायत) क? निनय क्त्तिक्त क? कय. हा( आगमें( आद पय.न्त स्थनिगत रख( जाय। यहा निनदE व्याख्यत (पचायत) क शि+य +गN नहाV हाग(। छत्ती(सगढ़ क रज्यप+ क नमें स तथा आदन सर Sd/- (एमें. क . रउत) प्रामें ख सशिचा छत्ती(सगढ़ सन पचायत ए  ग्रामें(ण नि कस नि भाग 21. Pursuant to the memo dated 25.04.2014, the Directorate of Urban Administration and Development, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, issued an order on 22.05.2014 (Annexure R-3/9) and directed the Local Bodies to keep the recruitment process of Assistant Teacher (Local Bodies) in abeyance till 15 further orders. It is also relevant to notice here the order dated 22.05.2014, which is as under:- सचा+न+य नगर(य प्रासन ए  नि कस छत्ती(सगढ़ रयप र कमेंक स(.भा/न.प्रा./2013/544 3548 रयप र, दिदनक 22-05-14 प्रानित समेंस्त आय क्त नगर पशि+क निनगमें, छत्ती(सगढ़ समेंस्त में ख्य नगरपशि+क अधिधकर(, नगरपशि+क / पचायत छत्ती(सगढ़ । नि षय!- शिक्षक ( नगर(य निनकय) भात) क सबंध में । सदभा.:- छ.ग.सन, पचायत ए  ग्रामें(ण नि कस नि भाग क परिरपत्रा कमेंक पचा 697/ पग्रानि नि /22/2014/999 दिदनक 25.4.2014 | नि षयनिकत सचा+न+य क पत्रा दिदनक 25.4.2013 में दिदय गय निनदEन सर निनकय> में शिक्षक ( नगर(य निनकय) निनय क्त्तिक्त क? कय. हा( प्राचाशि+त हाI। पचायत ए  ग्रामें(ण नि कस नि भाग क सदर्भिभाYत परिरपत्रा में शिक्षक ए  सहायक शिक्षक (पचायत) क? निनय क्त्तिक्त प्रानिक्रय स्थनिगत क? गई हाI क अन सर नगर(य निनकय> में भा( शिक्षक ( नगर(य निनकय) जिजासमें शिक्षक ए  सहायक शिक्षक क? निनय क्त्तिक्त आगमें( आद तक स्थनिगत रख( जाय । व्याख्यत ( नगर(य निनकय) पद क शि+ए यहा निनदE +गN नहा( हाग । ( सचा+क क आदन सर) सय क्त सचा+क नगर(य प्रासन ए  नि कस छत्ती(सगढ़ रयप र 22. This Court vide order dated 24.4.2024 directed the Director, Nagriya Prashasan and Vikas, Raipur to file an affidavit as to whether the selection of the petitioners was according to the Rules or not and if they are selected strictly on merits in accordance with the Rules, why the appointment order has not been issued in their favour. In compliance thereof, a counter affidavit dated 22.07.2024 has been filed by the Secretary, Urban Administration and 16 Development, State of CG, Raipur. Along with this affidavit, the respondents have filed an order dated 19.7.2024 (Annexure A), which reads as under:- छत्ती(सगढ़ सन नगर(य प्रासन ए  नि कस नि भाग मेंत्रा+य मेंहानद6 भा न, नय रयप र अट+ नगर //आद// न  रयप र दिदनक 19/07/2024 कमेंक्ष एफ 10-222/18/2014:: सचा+क नगर(य प्रासन ए  नि कस नि भाग क पत्रा क्रमेंक 544 दिदनक 29.04.2013 द्वार समेंस्त नगर(य निनकय> क शिक्षक क? स(ध( भात) हात दिद निनदE क सथा नि ज्ञापन क प्रारूप, भात) प्रानिक्रय निनध.रिरत कय.क्रमें हात भाजा गय था। नि ज्ञापन प्रारूप में व्याख्यत, शिक्षक ए सहायक शिक्षक क पद निनध.रिरत था। (2) नगर पशि+क परिरषद[ बं+-दबंजार क पत्रा दिदनक 17.06.2013 द्वार भात) हात नि ज्ञापन जार( निकए गए। इसमें सहायक शिक्षक पद में अन्य सकय क शि+ए 04 पद भा( था। (3) उक्त पद पर भात) हात आ दन प्राप्त कर, जिजा+ चायन सधिमेंनित द्वार यग्यत सNचा( क आधर पर, सत्यपन उपरत छनबं(न सधिमेंनित क समेंक्ष प्रास्त त निकय गय. जिजासक आधर पर सधिमेंनित द्वार दिदनक 29.06.2013 क द - आपश्चित्ती बं +ई गई। (4) नि ज्ञानिपत पद> में सहायक शिक्षक (न.निन.) अन्य सकय क 04 पद हात नि षय ए  Iक्षश्चिणक अहा.त स्पष्ट नहाV हान क करण छनबं(न सधिमेंनित क? बंIठक दिदनक 29.01.2014 में सहायक शिक्षक, नगर(य निनकय, अन्य नि षय 04 पद क सबंध में शिक्ष नि भाग स पद क नि षय क सबंध में जानकर( प्राप्त कर प न! नय शिसर स, आरक्षण निबंन्दु क आधर पर नि ज्ञापन जार! कर स(ध( भात) हात निनयमेंन सर, कय. हा( निकय जान क निनण.य शि+य गय। (5) छ.ग. शिक्षक ( नगर(य निनकय) स ग. ( भात) तथा स  क? तE) निनयमें 2013 क प्रा धन क अतग.त भात) क? जान( था(। इन निनयमें> में शिक्षक पद क अनितरिरक्त! अन्य सकय क प्रा धन नहाV था और न हा( अन्य सकय क? Iक्षश्चिणक अहा.त निनध.रिरत क? गई था(। नगर पशि+क परिरषद[ बं+-दबंजार द्वार निबंन स  भात) में प्रा धन> क स(ध( भात) हात नि ज्ञापन जार( निकय गय था। नगर पशि+क परिरषद[ बं+-दबंजार क? छनबं(न सधिमेंनित क? बंIठक दिदनक 29.01.2014 क कय. हा( नि रण अन सर, अनितमें रिरयत सNचा( क प्राकन निकय गय इसमें सहायक शिक्षक अन्य सकय क 05 पद क सबंध में शिक्ष नि भाग क पद क स्पष्ट नमें प्राप्त कर, प न! नय शिसर स आरक्षण निनयमें> क प+न करत हुए नि ज्ञापन जार( कर स(था.! भात) क? अन स क? गई । (6) सचा+न+य क पत्रा दिदनक 22.05.2014 द्वार समेंस्त नगर(य निनकय> क व्याख्यत क पद क छड़कर शिक्षक, सहायक शिक्षक क पद पर निनय क्त्तिक्त क? प्रानिक्रय स्थनिगत क? गई हाI। जिजासक करण सहायक शिक्षक (न.निन.) ए अन्य सकय क 04 पद पर भात) प्रानिक्रय पNण. नहाV क? जा सक?। (7) सचा+न+य नगर(य प्रासन द्वार अश्चिभामेंत दिदय गय निक, छनबं(न सधिमेंनित क निनण.य क अन सर, सहायक शिक्षक अन्य 04 पद> हात नय शिसर स आ दन प्राप्त निकय जान! था, जिजासक 17 करण आ दकगण श्री( रमेंNरमें सहू, श्री( मेंनमेंहान सिंसYहा सहू ए  प्रात(क क मेंर सहू क? निनय क्त्तिक्त नहाV क? गई। आ दकगण> द्वार सहायक शिक्षक ( नगर(य निनकय) अन्न सकय क पद पर निन यक्त्तिक्त क? मेंग चायन प्रानिक्रय पNण. न हान क करण ए  छत्ती(सगढ़ शिक्ष ( नगर(य निनकय) स ग. ( भात) तथा स  क? तE) निनयमें 2013 क प्रा धन में शिक्षक पदक अनितरिरक्त अन्य सकय क स  भात) में प्रा धन नहाV था और न हा( Iक्षश्चिणक अहा.त निनध.रिरत था(। अत! अन्य सकय पद पर भात) प्रानिक्रय निनयमेंन सर न हान क करण निनरस्त निकए जाए। सचा+न+य नगर(य प्रासन नि भाग क अश्चिभामेंत स सहामेंत हात हुए. छत्ती(सगढ़ शिक्षक ( नगर(य निनकय) स ग. ( भात) तथा स  क? तE) निनयमें 2013 क प्रा धन में शिक्षक पद क अनितरिरक्त अन्य सकय क स  भात) में प्रा धन नहाV हान क करण, रज्य सन एतद्वार, नगर पशि+क परिरषद[ बं+-दबंजार द्वार अन्य सकय क 04 पद क? भात) हात जार( नि ज्ञापन दिदनक 17.06.2013 ए  निनय क्त्तिक्त हात क? गई कय. हा( क अमेंन्य करत हाI। छत्ती(सगढ़ क रज्यप+ क नमें स तथा आदन सर दनिनए+ एक्का अ र सशिचा छत्ती(सगढ़ सन नगर(य प्रासन ए  नि कस नि भाग 23. Apart from this, there is another change in the circumstances that vide order dated 30.06.2018, the teachers (Panchayat/Local Bodies) who have completed 8 years of service on or before 01.07.2018, shall be absorbed in the School Education Department and after their absorption, the remaining vacant posts in the Panchayat or Local Bodies shall cease to exist. The order dated 30.06.2018 is as under:- सनि शि+यन निनद क्र.-01 छत्ती(सगढ़ सन स्कN + शिक्ष नि भाग मेंत्रा+य, मेंहानद6 भा न नय रयप र // आद // नय रयप र, दिदनfक 30/06/2018 क्रमेंक एफ..12/03/2018/20-nks] रज्य सन क निनण.य अन सर एतद्वार सक?य +ओं में कय.रत शिक्षक (पचायत/ नगर(य निनकय) जिजानक? स य 01 जा +ई 2018 क 08 ष. 18 य उसस अधिधक पNण. हा चा क? हाF, क? स ओं क दिदनfक 01 जा +ई 2018 स स्कN + शिक्ष नि भाग में सनि शि+यन निकय जात हाF। सनि शि+यन क? स  तh निनम्नन सर हाF- 1/ सनि शि+यन निकय गय शिक्षक (प./न.निन.) स ग. स्कN + शिक्ष नि भाग में शिक्षक (ए+.बं(.) स ग. क नमें स जान जायग। 2/ स्कN + शिक्ष नि भाग अतग.त पN . स सचाशि+त +ओं में जाहाf ई- स ग. क शिक्षक पदस्थ हाF, उन +ओं में पदस्थ शिक्षक (प./ न.निन.) स ग., न (न नमें शिक्षक ई (ए+. बं(.) स ग. क तथा जाहाf ट6- स ग. क शिक्षक पदस्थ हाF, उन +ओं में पदस्थ शिक्षक (प./न.निन.) स ग., न (न नमें शिक्षक ट6 (ए+.बं(.) स ग. क अतग.त हा>ग ए  इनक कI डोंर पTथाक- पTथाक हाग। 3/ शिक्षक (ए+.बं(.) स ग. क दिदनfक 01 जा +ई 2018 स 7  तन आयग क? रज्य सन द्वार समेंय- समेंय पर स् (कT त अन सओं क अन रूप तन ए  अन्य स नि धएf दय हा>ग(। 4/ शिक्षक (ए+.बं(.) स ग. क दय समेंस्त +भा क शि+य स  क? गणन सनि शि+यन दिदनfक 01 जा +ई 2018 स क? जायग(। 5/ दिदनfक 01 जा +ई 2018 क पN . क? अ धिध क शि+य निकस( भा( प्राकर क एरिरयस. क? पत्रात नहाV हाग(। 6/ शिक्षक (ए+.बं(.) स ग. क न (न अदय( पन यजान क? पत्रात हाग(। 7/ शिक्षक (ए+.बं(.) स ग. क? भात), पदन्नश्चित्ती ए  स  निनयमें स्कN + शिक्ष नि भाग द्वार पTथाक स बंनए जाकर अधिधसNशिचात निकय जायग। 8/ निकस( भा( अन्य नि भाग क स  ए  भात) निनयमें> में यदिद इस आद क अतग.त निनर्मिमेंYत निनयमें> स असगत कई निनयमें अथा  प्रा धन हा; त  निनयमें य प्रा धन इस आद क प्रा धन> क? स(में तक सधिधत मेंन जाएग। सबंधिधत नि भाग इस आद क प्रा धन> स सगत अन कN +न आद अपन स  भात) निनयमें> में यथाक्त्तिस्थनित अनि +बं धिमें+ करएग । 9/ शिक्षक (प./न.निन.) स ग. क जार( निनय क्त्तिक्त आद क नि रूर्द्ध यदिद निकस( न्यय+य में प्राकरण नि चारध(न हाI, त उनक सनि शि+यन न्यय+य(न निनण.य क अध्यध(न रहाग। यहा आद तत्क+ प्राभा (+ हाग। छत्ती(सगढ़ क रज्यप+ क नमें स तथा आदन सर ( ग-र निद्वा द6) सशिचा छत्ती(सगढ़ सन स्कN + शिक्ष नि भाग 24. On 02.01.2022, the Joint Director, Urban Administration and Development, Raipur, wrote a letter to the Director, Urban Administration and Development, Directorate, Raipur, stating that since the teacher (Local Bodies) has been absorbed in the Education Department, and the vacant posts are 19 surrendered to the Education Department, all correspondence shall be made to the Directorate, Public Instructions, Raipur. The relevant part of the letter dated 02.01.2022 (Annexure R-3/10) is as under:-” “d`i;k f’k{kd uxjh; fudk; dk lafofy;u f’k{kk foHkkx esa gksus ds i’pkr~ fjDr in f’k{kk foHkkx dks leiZ.k gksus ds QyLo:i ykssd f’k{k.k lapkyuky; dks vfxze dk;Zokgh gsrq lapkyuky; Lrj i= fy[kus dk d”V djsaA” 25. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and the material available on record, this Court finds that though the petitioners had participated in the recruitment process initiated pursuant to advertisement dated 17.06.2013 and their names were reflected in the merit/seniority list, the core issue requiring adjudication is whether the recruitment itself, insofar as it related to the post of Assistant Teacher (Local Bodies) for “Other Subject”, was in conformity with the statutory framework governing the field. The appointments in question were governed by the Chhattisgarh Shikshak (Nagariya Nikay) Samvarg (Bharti Tatha Seva Ki Sharte) Niyam, 2013. A perusal of the Rules of 2013 would show that no sanctioned cadre or subject category of Assistant Teacher (Local Bodies) for “Other Subject” has been contemplated therein, nor do the Rules prescribe any qualification, subject classification or mode of consideration for such category. Thus, the advertisement dated 17.06.2013, to the extent it sought recruitment on the post of Assistant Teacher (Local Bodies) for “Other Subject”, travelled beyond the statutory Rules and could not have formed the basis for a valid and enforceable recruitment process. 26. It is well settled that recruitment to public posts must strictly conform to the statutory rules holding the field, and any appointment process initiated contrary to the recruitment rules cannot confer any indefeasible right upon the candidates merely because they participated in the process or their names appeared in a select list. In the present case, once the discrepancy regarding the absence of subject specification and non-existence of the category “Other Subject” under the Rules of 2013 came to the notice of the 20 authorities, the Screening Committee, in its meeting dated 29.01.2014, consciously resolved that a fresh advertisement be issued after obtaining clarification from the Education Department regarding the specific names of the posts and subjects. The said decision cannot be said to be arbitrary or irrational; it was taken to bring the recruitment process into conformity with the statutory provisions and to avoid future administrative complications. 27. Furthermore, before any appointment orders could be issued, the State Government, vide memo dated 25.04.2014, directed that the recruitment process relating to the posts of Teacher (Panchayat) and Assistant Teacher (Panchayat/Local Bodies) be kept in abeyance until further orders, pursuant to which the Directorate of Urban Administration and Development also issued consequential directions on 22.05.2014 restraining further recruitment proceedings. Therefore, the selection process itself never culminated in a completed appointment process. Mere inclusion of the names of the petitioners in the merit list did not create any vested or enforceable right to seek appointment, particularly when the very foundation of the recruitment process was found to be inconsistent with the Rules of 2013, and the process itself stood suspended by the competent authorities before issuance of appointment orders. 28. In the case of “State of Assam v. Arabinda Rabha” 2025 (7) SCC 705, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the aspirants do not have an indefeasible right or vested right of appointment. In para 60 of its judgment, it has been held that:- “60. Any decision taken not to appoint despite there being vacancies and a valid select list, obviously, is in the nature of a policy decision. It has to be borne in mind that securing public employment is the dream of many, who put their heart and soul to prepare for it. Nowadays, aspirants undertake rigorous study sessions as well as training modules to equip themselves, which also comes at a heavy cost. That apart, since every process of recruitment necessarily involves substantial expenses which are borne from the public exchequer and 21 at the same time the aspirants for the posts (who, as per their own estimation, have performed sufficiently well and therefore stand a good chance of being appointed upon figuring in the select list) cherish fond hopes of a bright and secure future, the law is clear that the policy decision not to carry the process forward must be taken bona fide, there has to be justifiable reason if the process is abandoned midway, and such decision must not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or the whims of the decision maker. This acts as a check on the employer's power deciding against not making any appointment from the select list despite availability of vacancy/vacancies on the advertised/notified public post(s). A writ court may, upon reaching the requisite satisfaction, intervene d in such manner and make such directions as the facts and circumstances warrant. We, therefore, do not find it acceptable that the aspirants, not having an indefeasible or vested right of appointment, do not also have the right to question any decision adverse to their interest affecting achievement of their goals to secure public employment. Whether, and to what extent, any relief should be granted, must depend on the facts of each case.” 29. In the case of “Tej Prakash Pathak and Others v. Rajasthan High Court and Others” 2025 (2) SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that :- “63. In Section (C) above, we have already noticed the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47, where it was held: (SCC p. 51. para 7) "7.... Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted." 64. Thus, in light of the decision in Shankarsan Dash (supra), a candidate placed in the select list gets no indefeasible right to be appointed even if vacancies are available. Similar was the view taken 22 by this Court in State of Haryana Vs. Subash Chander Marwaha where against 15 vacancies only top 7 from the select list were appointed. But there is a caveat. The State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a selected candidate. Therefore, when a challenge is laid to State's action in respect of denying appointment to a selected candidate, the burden is on the State to justify its decision for not making appointment from the select list. 65.6 Placement in the select list gives no indefeasible right to appointment. The State or its instrumentality for bona fide reasons may choose not to fill up the vacancies. However, if vacancies exist, the State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a person within the zone of consideration in the select list.” 30. In the case of “East Coast Railway v. Mahadev Appa Rao” 2010 (7) SCC 678, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the “arbitrariness” and held that:- “14. It is evident from the above that while no candidate acquires an indefeasible right to a post merely because he has appeared in the examination or even found a place in the select list, yet the State does not enjoy an unqualified prerogative to refuse an appointment in an arbitrary fashion or to disregard the merit of the candidates as reflected by the merit list prepared at the end of the selection process. The validity of the State's decision not to make an appointment is thus a matter which is not beyond judicial review before a competent writ court. If any such decision is indeed found to be arbitrary, appropriate directions can be issued in the matter. 17. It is trite that Article 14 of the Constitution strikes at arbitrariness which is an antithesis of the guarantee contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Whether or not the cancellation of the typing test was arbitrary is a question which the Court shall have to examine once a challenge is mounted to any such action, no matter the candidates do not have an indefeasible right to claim an appointment against the advertised posts. 18. What then is meant by arbitrary/ arbitrariness and how far can the decision of the competent authority in the present case be described as arbitrary ? 23 19. Black's Law Dictionary describes the term "arbitrary" in the following words: "Arbitrary - 1. Depending on individual discretion; specif., determined by a judge rather than by fixed rules, procedures, or law. 2. (Of a judicial decision) founded on prejudice or preference rather than on reason or fact. This type of decision is often termed arbitrary and capricious." 20. To the same effect is the meaning given to the expression "arbitrary" by Corpus Juris Secundum which explains the term in the following words: "Arbitrary. - Based alone upon one's will, and not upon any course of reasoning and exercise of judgment; bound by no law; capricious; exercised according to one's own will or caprice and therefore conveying a notion of a tendency to abuse possession of power; fixed or done capriciously or at pleasure, without adequate determining principle, non-rational, or not done or acting according to reason or judgment; not based upon actuality but beyond a reasonable extent; not founded in the nature of things; not governed by any fixed rules or standard; also, in a somewhat different sense, absolute in power, despotic, or tyrannical; harsh and unforbearing. When applied to acts, 'arbitrary' has been held to connote a disregard of evidence or of the proper weight thereof; to express an idea opposed to administrative, executive, judicial, or legislative discretion; and to imply at least an element of bad faith, and has been compared with 'willful'." 21. There is no precise statutory or other definition of the term arbitrary". In Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P. this Court explained that the true import of the expression "arbitrariness" is more easily visualised than precisely stated or defined and that whether or not an act is arbitrary would be determined on the facts and circumstances of a given case. This Court observed: (SCC p. 243, para 36) "36. The meaning and true import of arbitrariness is more easily visualised than precisely stated or defined. The question, whether an impugned act is arbitrary or not, is ultimately to be answered on the facts see whether there is any discernible principle emerging from the impugned act and if so, does it satisfy the test of reasonableness, Where a mode is prescribed for doing an act and there is no impediment in following that procedure, performance of the act otherwise and in a manner 24 which does not disclose any discernible principle which is reasonable, may itself attract the vice of arbitrariness. Every State action must be informed by reason and it follows that an act uninformed by reason, is arbitrary. The rule of law contemplates governance by laws and M not by humour, whims or caprices of the men to whom the governance is entrusted for the time being. It is trite that 'be you ever so high, the lawr of th are above you'. This is what men in power must remember, always." 22. Dealing with the principle governing exercise of official power Prof. De Smith, Woolf and Jowell in their celebrated book on Judicial Review of Administrative Action emphasised how the decision-maker invested with the wide discretion is expected to exercise that discretion in accordance with the general principles governing exercise of power in a constitutional democracy unless of course the statute under which such power is exercisable indicates otherwise. One of the most fundamental principles of the rule of law recognised in all democratic systems is that the power vested in any competent authority shall not be exercised arbitrarily and that the power is exercised that it does not lead to any unfair discrimination. The following passage from the above is in this regard apposite: "We have seen in a number of situations how the scope of an official power cannot be interpreted in isolation from general principles governing the exercise of power in a constitutional democracy. The courts presume that these principles apply to the exercise of all powers and that even where the decision- maker is invested with wide discretion, that discretion is to be exercised in accordance with those principles unless Parliament clearly indicates otherwise. One such principle, the rule of law, contains within it a number of requirements such as the right of the individual to access to the law and that power should not be arbitrarily exercised. The rule of law above all rests upon the principle of legal certainty, which will be considered here, along with a principle which is partly but not wholly contained within the rule of law, namely, the principle of equality, or equal treatment without unfair discrimination." 23. Arbitrariness in the making of an order by an authority can manifest itself in different forms. Non-application of mind by he 25 authority making the order is only one of them. Every order passed by a public authority must disclose due an proper application of mind by the person making the order. This may be evident from the order itself or the record contemporaneously maintained. Application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind by the authority making the order. And disclosure is best done by recording the reasons that led the authority to pass the order in question. Absence of reasons either in the order passed by the authority or in the record contemporaneously maintained is clearly suggestive of the order being arbitrary hence legally unsustainable.” 31. From the aforesaid judgments, it is no doubt well settled that a candidate does not acquire an indefeasible right to appointment merely by participating in or even qualifying for a selection process. Though the state cannot act arbitrarily or deny an appointment without a bona fide and justifiable reason; however in the present case, non-issuance of the appointment order is having the reason that neither the recruitment process for “Assistant Teacher (Local Bodies) other subjects” nor the eligibility criteria for the same have been provided in the Rules of 2013, and at the time of scrutiny, the screening committee recommended for fresh advertisement under the rules. 32. This Court also cannot lose sight of the subsequent developments that have taken place during the pendency of the present writ petition. By virtue of the policy/order dated 30.06.2018 issued by the School Education Department, the cadre of Teachers (Panchayat/Local Bodies) stood absorbed in the School Education Department after fulfilment of the prescribed conditions and, thereafter, the remaining vacant posts under the Panchayat and Local Bodies ceased to exist. The communications brought on record further reveal that the vacant posts under the Local Bodies cadre were surrendered to the Education Department, and the Urban Administration Department ceased to exercise control over such cadre. Thus, even otherwise, the posts against which the petitioners seek appointment are no longer available in the original establishment of respondent No.3. 26 33. The contention of the petitioners that similarly situated candidates were granted appointments in certain other Local Bodies also does not advance their case. Any appointment made contrary to the statutory Rules cannot be relied upon to claim parity under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as the principle of equality cannot be invoked for perpetuation of an illegality. Likewise, the communications issued by the Joint Director directing reconsideration of the petitioners’ cases cannot override the statutory Rules of 2013 nor create a right contrary to the cadre structure recognized under the Rules. Once it is found that the recruitment for “Other Subject” itself lacked statutory sanction and the cadre/posts subsequently stood abolished or surrendered upon absorption into the School Education Department, no mandamus can be issued directing appointment of the petitioners. 34. The judgment of “Gavendra Kumar and Others” (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners turned on its own facts and on the peculiar circumstances prevailing therein. In the present case, the respondent authorities have specifically brought on record that the recruitment relating to the category “Assistant Teacher (Local Bodies) Other Subject” itself was not in conformity with the Rules of 2013, inasmuch as neither such subject category nor the corresponding eligibility criteria were contemplated under the statutory Rules. The Screening Committee, upon noticing the said discrepancy, consciously resolved on 29.01.2014 that a fresh advertisement be issued after obtaining proper clarification regarding the subject-wise posts. Thereafter, the State Government vide memo dated 25.04.2014, and the Directorate of Urban Administration and Development vide order dated 22.05.2014 directed that further recruitment proceedings be kept in abeyance. Merely because in certain other local bodies appointments may have been issued to some candidates despite similar irregularities, the same would not confer any enforceable right upon the petitioners to claim appointment on the principle of parity. It is settled law that Article 14 does not 27 envisage negative equality, and an illegality or irregularity committed in one case cannot be directed to be perpetuated in another. The stand taken by the respondents, therefore, cannot be held to be discriminatory merely because some appointments were allegedly made elsewhere, particularly when the respondents have demonstrated that the recruitment process in question had not attained finality and was subsequently rendered unworkable owing to the policy decision dated 30.06.2018 whereby the cadre itself stood absorbed into the School Education Department and the remaining vacant posts ceased to exist. 35. The decision relied upon by the petitioners, namely “Sudhir Rajpal” (supra), does not advance the case of the petitioners in the facts of the present matter. The said case was rendered in an entirely different factual background where the appointment orders could not be issued due to certain anomaly exists in government records with respect to the pay scale. In the present case, admittedly, no appointment orders were ever issued in favour of the petitioners for the reason that the recruitment process is against the Rules of 2013, and the recruitment process itself remained incomplete. Further, in the instant matter, the authorities have specifically demonstrated that the category “Assistant Teacher (Local Bodies) Other Subject” was not recognized under the Rules of 2013 and that the Screening Committee itself had recommended issuance of a fresh advertisement after proper subject- wise clarification. Moreover, before the process could attain finality, the State Government vide memo dated 25.04.2014 and the Directorate of Urban Administration and Development vide order dated 22.05.2014 directed that the recruitment proceedings be kept in abeyance. Subsequently, by virtue of the policy dated 30.06.2018, the cadre itself stood absorbed into the School Education Department, and the remaining vacant posts ceased to exist. Thus, the factual and legal foundation in the present case is materially different from the circumstances considered in “Sudhir Rajpal”. Therefore, 28 the petitioners cannot derive any enforceable right to appointment on the basis of the said decision. 36. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners have failed to establish any legal or enforceable right for the issuance of appointment orders on the post of Assistant Teacher (Local Bodies). The recruitment process, insofar as it related to the category “Other Subject”, was not in consonance with the Rules of 2013, and subsequently the cadre itself stood merged, and the vacant posts surrendered to the School Education Department. 37. Consequently, no relief, as prayed for by the petitioners, can now be granted by this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 38. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok/ sagrika