1 2026:CGHC:25395 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3781 of 2022  Smt. Kiranbala Dubey W/o Shri Rajesh Dubey Aged About 48 Years R/o Sikolabhata, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Dy. Director, Directorate Public Education Department, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. District Education Officer Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 4. Principal, Tularam Arya Girls Higher Secondary School Durg, (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Rishabh Dev Singh, Advocate For State : Mr. T.L. Bareth, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 4 : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 22.06 .2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 set aside the order dated 18.9.2020 (Annexure P-10) passed by respondent No.3; 10.2 direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Lab Assistant as she is fully qualified therefor being a science graduate SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.06.23 16:46:24 +0530 2 and then to regularize her on that post, or in the alternative; 10.3 direct respondents 2 and 3 to regularize the services of the petitioner who is performing her duties as Lab Attendant with respondent No. 4 for more than 8 years; 10.4 grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Lab Attendant on contract basis vide order dated 01.12.2012 under the respondent No. 4, which is a Government aided institution. He would contend that one post of Lab Attendant is still lying vacant, and therefore, services of the petitioner have been extended from time to time. He would contend that the Principal of the institution recommended the name of the petitioner for regularization, but the District Education Officer vide order dated 18.09.2020(Annexure P/10) rejected the claim of the petitioner only on the ground that contractual employment cannot be extended for such a long period. He would submit that the reasons assigned by the District Education Officer dated 18.09.2020 are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bhola Nath vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 129. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose. Mr. T.L. Bareth would submit that the petitioner was appointed on contract and she has no right to claim regularization. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 3 5. The petitioner was appointed on 01.12.2012 on the post of Lab Attendant and she is still working on the said post. It appears that there is vacancy, and therefore, the Principal of the institution has recommended the name of the petitioner for regularization of services to the District Education Officer/respondent No. 3, but respondent No.3 without assigning sufficient reason rejected the claim of the petitioner only on the ground that contractual employment cannot be extended for such a long period. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bhola Nath (supra) in para 13.5 to 13.9 held as under :- “13.5. Such a decision must necessarily be a conscious and reasoned one. An employee who has satisfactorily discharged his duties over several years and has been granted repeated extensions cannot, overnight, be treated as surplus or undesirable. We are unable to accept the justification advanced by the respondents as the obligation of the State, as a model employer, extends to fair treatment of its employees irrespective of whether their engagement is contractual or regular. 13.6. This Court has, on several occasions, deprecated the practice adopted by States of engaging employees under the nominal labels of "part-time", "contractual" or "temporary" in perpetuity and thereby exploiting them by not regularizing their positions. In Jaggo v. Union of India 1, this Court underscored that government departments must lead by example in ensuring fair and stable employment, and evolved the test of examining whether the duties performed by such temporary employees are integral to the day-to-day functioning of the organization. 13.7. In Shripal v. Nagar Nigam,2 and Vinod 1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221 4 Kumar v. Union of India3, this Court cautioned against a mechanical and blind reliance on Umadevi (supra) to deny regularization to temporary employees in the absence of statutory rules. It was held that Umadevi (supra) cannot be employed as a shield to legitimise exploitative engagements continued for years without undertaking regular recruitment. The Court further clarified that Umadevi itself draws a distinction between appointments that are "illegal" and those that are merely "irregular", the latter being amenable to regularization upon fulfilment of the prescribed conditions. 13.8. In Dharam Singh v. State of U.P.4 this Court strongly deprecated the culture of capacity as employers. The Court criticised the practice of outsourcing ad-hocism" adopted by States in their or informalizing recruitment as a means to evade regular employment obligations, observing that such measures perpetuate precarious working conditions while circumventing fair and lawful engagement practices. 13.9. The State must remain conscious that part-time employees, such as the appellants, constitute an integral part of the edifice upon which the machinery of the State continues to function. They are not merely ancillary to the system, but form essential components thereof. The equality mandate of our Constitution, therefore, requires that their service be reciprocated in a manner free from arbitrariness, ensuring that decisions of the State affecting the careers and livelihood of such part-time and contractual employees are guided by fairness and reason. 7. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the order passed by the District Education Officer, Durg dated 18.09.2020 (Annexure P/10) is hereby quashed. The petitioner would be at liberty to prefer afresh representation before the respondent No. 3 (2024) 9 SCC 327 4 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735 5 3 within a period of 45 days and the said authority is directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner and decide it in objective manner, preferably within a period of 120 days. 8. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant