1 2026:CGHC:25672 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4684 of 2026 Umashankar Tiwari S/o Late Shri Sushil Chandra Tiwari Aged About 62 Years R/o Seepat Road Sarkanda, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Tah. Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chief Engineer Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Authority, Vikas Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Superintendent Engineer Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Authority, Project Division Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Chief Executive Officer Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Authority, Vikas Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Avinash Singh, GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Order on Board 23/06/2026 1. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner prays for the following RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.06.23 17:11:29 +0530 2 relief:- “10.1 It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of CERTIORARI quashing the impugned order dated 30.04.2026 and may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent department to reconsider the application of the petitioner sympathetically within the time frame as directed by this Hon'ble Court. 10.2 It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue any writ or direction or order as deem fit in the interest of justice. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the order dated 15.01.2026 passed by this Court in WPS No. 410/2026, respondent No.4 was directed to consider and decide the petitioner's representation seeking contractual engagement. In compliance thereof, the said representation has been considered and rejected by order dated 30.04.2026. It is submitted that the petitioner was initially working as a Conductor in MPSRTC and was subsequently adjusted in Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, Raipur. However, while rejecting the representation, the competent authority has held that the petitioner's substantive post was that of Conductor and, since no such post exists in the sanctioned cadre strength of the Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Agency, his case cannot be considered for contractual appointment under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contract Appointment) Rules, 2012. Learned counsel further submits that, having rendered long years of service, the petitioner is entitled to sympathetic consideration by the respondents. 3 3. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned order and submits that the petitioner's original post was that of Conductor. Since no such post exists in the approved cadre structure of the Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Agency, the petitioner is not eligible for consideration for contractual appointment under the applicable Rules. It is further submitted that no mandamus can be issued directing appointment on contract basis, particularly in the absence of any advertisement, selection process or statutory right in favour of the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. A perusal of the impugned order dated 30.04.2026 (Annexure-P/1) would reveal that the petitioner was initially employed with MPSRTC and was working on the post of Conductor. Thereafter, his services came to be adjusted under the Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, Raipur. The petitioner's representation seeking contractual engagement has been rejected on the ground that the post of Conductor does not exist in the sanctioned cadre strength of the Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Agency and, therefore, his case cannot be considered under the applicable Rules. The sole contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that having rendered long years of service, his case deserves sympathetic consideration. 6. It is not in dispute that the post of Conductor does not form part of the sanctioned cadre strength of the Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development 4 Agency. It is also not the case of the petitioner that any advertisement has been issued or any selection process has been undertaken for contractual engagement on any post. It is well settled that appointment to a public post must be made in accordance with the applicable recruitment rules and prescribed procedure. In the absence of any enforceable legal or statutory right in favour of the petitioner, no direction can be issued by this Court for grant of contractual appointment merely on sympathetic considerations. 7. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 30.04.2026 warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Rahul