CGHC010187002020 2026:CGHC:33462 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3595 of 2020 Duleshwar Verma S/o Shri Latu Ram Verma Aged About 49 Years Posted At Rani Rashmi Devi Government College Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, R/o Village Pipariya, Post Pipariya, Tahsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Commissioner Directorate Of Higher Education, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Na- gar, New Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Principal Rani Rashmi Devi Singh Government College, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Basant Kaiwartya, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, G.A. along with Dr. Surendra Dewangan, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Judge Order on Board 03.08.2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 16.12.2019 (Annexure P/1), whereby the representation preferred by the petitioner came to be rejected by the respondent No. 3. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been rendering continuous service for more than 25 years and is entitled to regularization in terms of the circulars dated 05.03.2008 and 03.04.2008. It is further submitted that although this Court, by order dated 16.10.2019 passed in W.P.S. No. 8474 of 2019, directed respon- dent No. 3 to consider and decide the petitioner's representation within 90 days, the said representation has been rejected by the impugned order dated 16.12.2019 without proper consideration of the petitioner's claim and the applicable circulars. It is contended that the impugned or- der is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the directions issued by this Court, and therefore deserves to be quashed with a direction to the re- spondents to regularize the services of the petitioner in accordance with law. 3. Learned State counsel supports the impugned order and submits that it has been rejected in accordance with the applicable rules. It is prayed that the present writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dis- missed. 4. I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. This Court, vide order dated 16.10.2019 passed in W.P.S. No. 8474 of 2019, directed the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation. A perusal of the impugned order dated 16.12.2019 re- veals that the petitioner's representation has been rejected solely on the ground that he failed to produce the documents sought by the re- spondent authority. If the authority was of the view that certain docu- ments were necessary for proper consideration of the petitioner's claim, it ought to have granted the petitioner a reasonable opportunity by ex- tending the time for furnishing the requisite documents instead of re- jecting the representation outright. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 16.12.2019 is set aside. The matter is remitted to respondent No. 3 for fresh consideration. The re- spondent No. 3 shall consider the petitioner's claim afresh and pass a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The petitioner shall submit all the requisite documents before the competent authority. 7. Accordingly, the present writ petitions stand disposed of. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Jyoti