1 CGHC010393162024 2026:CGHC:32239-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 806 of 2024 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Res. No. 1) 2 - Commissioner Director of Public Education, Mantralaya, Mahandi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Res. No. 2) 3 - District Education Officer District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. (Res. No. 3) ... Appellants versus 1 - Krishna Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Veer Singh Sahu Aged About 61 Years Lecturer Employee In Government Kisan Higher Secondary School Arjuni District- Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No. 1) 2 - Hemlal Sahu (Died) Through Legal Heir- As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 07-11-2023 2.1 - (A) Pravin Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Hemlal Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o H. No. 77, Ward No. 17, Dhaurabhatha, Tumdibod, Rajnandgaon, Dongargaon, C.G. 491441 3 - Beniram Sahu S/o Shri Bholaram Sahu Aged About 54 Years Upper Division Teacher Employee In Government Kisan Higher Secondary School Arjuni District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No. 3) ... Respondents For Appellants/State : Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, Deputy Advocate General For Respondents : None appears though served ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 13 .0 7 .202 6 1. As per memo dated 14.01.2025 of the Officer-in-charge, Nazarat Section, District & Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, notices issued to the respondents have been duly served upon them. However, till date, neither any representation has been made on behalf of the respondents nor any return has been filed. Today also, when the case is called out for hearing, no representation has been made on behalf of the respondents to contest this matter. Accordingly, this Court has proceeded to examine the matter on the basis of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellants and the pleadings available on record. 2. Heard Mr. Prasun Kumar Bharuri, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/Appellants on I.A. No. 01 of 2024, which is an application for condonation of delay of 213 days in preferring the instant appeal. 3. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the said application, the same is allowed. Delay of 213 days in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned. The appeal is heard finally. 4. By way of present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006, the State/appellants, who were respondents in the writ 3 petition preferred by the writ petitioners / respondents herein, have challenged the impugned order dated 23.02.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No. 3011 of 2015 (Krishna Kumar Sahu & Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), by which the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners/ respondents herein has been disposed by the learned Single Judge with a direction to the concerned authority to consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with law. 5. Brief facts, necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that the writ petitioners / respondents here were appointed on the posts of Lecturer/ Upper Division Teacher/Assistant Teacher in a Registered Education Society namely Jila Kisan Sangh, Rajnandgoan in the year 1981. By the passage of time, the said School was taken over by the State Government and the staffs were absorbed under the School Education Department as per the Absorption Policy issued on 26.06.1995. Referring to the policy dated 26.06.1995, the writ petitioners claimed absorption of their services and submitted several representations in this regard, but, when their request was not considered, they preferred a writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition No.2284/2004, which was disposed of by this Court on 25.11.2013 giving liberty to the petitioners to file a representation before the concerned authorities. However, the representation of the petitioners was dismissed by the concerned authority by the impugned orders dated 24.01.2014 and 13.03.2014 (Annexures P/3 & P/4) 4 respectively. Being aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioners had preferred a writ petition before this Court being WPS No. 3011 of 2015, which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 23.02.2024 with a direction to the concerned authority to consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with law. However, it was observed that the petitioners shall not be entitled for any arrears on the principle of ‘No work No pay’ and shall only be entitled for the retiral benefits, which shall be released in an expeditious manner preferably within a period of four months and the services of the petitioners shall be counted from 01.12.1998 for the purpose of their retiral benefits. Being aggrieved by the same, the instant appeal has been preferred by the State/ appellants. 6. Learned counsel for the State/appellants submitted that the impugned order dated 23.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge is contrary to the facts on record and the applicable statutory provisions, and is therefore liable to be set aside. It is contended that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the Absorption Policy dated 26.06.1995 framed by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, which specifically provides that the qualification of the employees of non-government/local body schools seeking absorption in Government service must be the same as that prescribed by the Government for the corresponding posts. It is submitted that the writ petitioners did not possess the minimum educational qualifications prescribed for the post of 5 Lecturer under the applicable Recruitment Rules, as they had secured a third division in graduation, whereas the relevant rules required a second division in the concerned subject or an equivalent qualification. Consequently, the writ petitioners were ineligible for absorption, and the learned Single Judge erred in directing consideration of their cases by relying upon Clause 3(c) of the Absorption Policy while overlooking Clause 2 thereof. Learned State counsel further submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to consider the statutory provisions contained in the M.P. Education Department (Non-Collegiate) Class III (Ministerial Cadre) Services Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1973, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, which govern the field. It is argued that the Screening Committee rightly declined to absorb the services of the writ petitioners as they did not satisfy the prescribed eligibility criteria, and such decision was strictly in conformity with the Absorption Policy dated 26.06.1995. It is further submitted that absorption cannot be claimed as a matter of right and can only be granted in accordance with the governing policy. Therefore, in the absence of the requisite qualifications, the writ petitioners had no enforceable right to seek absorption, and the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are contrary to the statutory scheme and settled principles of law. It is lastly submitted that the learned Single Judge also erred in placing reliance upon the case of one Keshav Ram Sahu, who was allegedly granted absorption despite not fulfilling the prescribed 6 eligibility criteria. According to the appellant, any decision contrary to the applicable rules cannot constitute a binding precedent or confer a right upon similarly situated persons to claim parity. It is further contended that the reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on Clause 3(c) of the Absorption Policy is misconceived, as the said provision is applicable only to ministerial staff such as Lower Division Clerks, Upper Division Clerks, Accountants, and Class IV employees, and not to members of the teaching cadre such as the writ petitioners. In these circumstances, it is submitted that the impugned order suffers from legal infirmity and deserves to be set aside. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the State/appellants, perused the impugned order and the materials brought on record. 8. The principal contention advanced on behalf of the appellants is that the learned Single Judge erred in directing consideration of the writ petitioners for absorption despite their not possessing the requisite educational qualifications prescribed under the Absorption Policy dated 26.06.1995 and the M.P. Education Department (Non-Collegiate) Class III (Ministerial Cadre) Services Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1973. It has also been contended that Clause 3(c) of the Absorption Policy has no application to the teaching cadre and that absorption cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It has been further argued that the case of Keshav Ram Sahu, relied upon by the learned Single Judge, cannot be treated as a precedent since any action contrary 7 to the statutory rules cannot confer a right upon others to claim similar relief. 9. For the sake of brevity, Clause 3 of the Scheme of the ‘Absorption Policy’ is reproduced below : 3. Absorption : (a) The upper Division Teachers, Lectures and other staff will be absorbed on the posts held by them at the time of taking over of the institutions under Government control provided:- (i) He is qualiied for the post held by him. (ii) and he is receiving the prescribed scale of the pay of the grade. A person who does not fulill the conditions laid down in sub-para (i) and (ii) above may be absorbed in lower grade/post for which he is entitled on the strength of his qualifications and pay. (iii) A person should fulfill all formalities, terms and conditions that need to be complied with as in the case of first entry into Government service, viz. verification of antecedents/medical fitness. No one who has attained the age of superannuation according to Government rules shall be absorbed. (b) For absorption on the post of Head Masters/Principal of High/Higher secondary School, the person concerned should possess post graduate degree with at least 11 class with B.Ed. and should have worked on the same post for minimum period of 7 years in the same institution; and should have 10 years teaching experience in any of the recognised institutions of Madhya Pradesh. (c) The ministerial and other staff if any working under the management of non-government/Local body schools if 8 under-qualiied shall be absorbed only in a post suitable to his qualification.” 10. A careful reading of the Absorption Policy dated 26.06.1995 shows that the object of the policy is to protect the services of employees of non-government/local body institutions taken over by the State and to regulate their absorption in a fair and equitable manner. The learned Single Judge has interpreted the policy in its proper perspective and has merely directed the competent authority to consider the cases of the writ petitioners in accordance with the relevant provisions of the policy. The impugned order does not direct automatic absorption of the writ petitioners nor does it dispense with the requirement of examining their eligibility in accordance with law. The contention of the appellants that the learned Single Judge has granted absorption contrary to the statutory rules is, therefore, misconceived. 11. The question whether the writ petitioners satisfy the eligibility criteria prescribed under the applicable rules and the Absorption Policy is essentially a matter for consideration by the competent authority while undertaking the exercise directed by the learned Single Judge. The observations made in the impugned order cannot be construed as a declaration that the writ petitioners are entitled to absorption irrespective of their eligibility. Equally, the reliance placed by the learned Single Judge upon the relevant provisions of the Absorption Policy cannot be said to be so erroneous as to warrant interference in an intra-court appeal. The 9 direction issued is limited in nature and preserves the discretion of the competent authority to examine the claims of the writ petitioners strictly in accordance with the governing policy and statutory provisions. 12. It is well settled that an appellate Court would ordinarily not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the learned Single Judge unless the findings recorded are shown to be perverse, contrary to law, or based on a patent misreading of the record. In the present case, the appellants have failed to demonstrate any such perversity or legal infirmity in the impugned order. The grounds urged in the appeal do not disclose any error warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction. 13. Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error warranting interference. The writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra