1 CGHC010196172026 2026:CGHC:34702-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 670 of 2026 Uttam Singh Sidar S/o. Shri Rajan Singh Sidar Aged About 44 Years R/o. Village Dongadarha, Post Dumaria, Tehsil Pharsabahar, District- Jashpur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Mission Director Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission Chhattisgarh Raiupr, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector-Cum-District Mission Director Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Raigarh, District- Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 4 - District Education Officer-Cum-District Project Coordinator Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Raigarh District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate, along with Mr. Rahul Ambast, Advocate. For State : Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, Dy. Advocate General. For Respondent No. 2 to 4. : Ms. Anuradha Jain, Advocate on behalf of Ms. Akansha Jain, Advocate. ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.08.11 11:20:25 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 07/08/2026 1. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 05.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.2709/2019, whereby, while setting aside the order dated 22.02.2019 terminating the services of the writ appellant on the ground of non-fulfilment of the requisite educational qualification, the learned Single Judge declined to grant the consequential relief of reinstatement by observing that the writ appellant was a contractual employee and his tenure had expired. The writ appellant is also aggrieved by the subsequent order dated 20.04.2026 passed in REVP No.104/2026, whereby the review petition preferred against the aforesaid order was dismissed in limine. The writ appellant assails the aforesaid orders primarily on the ground that once the termination order was found to be unsustainable for having been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing, the writ appellant could not have been denied effective consequential relief by treating his engagement as having come to an end, particularly when similarly situated employees appointed under the same advertisement and on identical terms have continued in service. 3 2. Learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the writ appellant would submit that the learned Single Judge, having set aside the order dated 22.02.2019 on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, ought not to have denied the consequential relief of reinstatement merely on the ground that the writ appellant was a contractual employee. It is submitted that the writ appellant was initially appointed pursuant to a duly constituted selection process in the year 2012 as Mobile Resource Advisor and was subsequently re-designated as Block Resource Person (Inclusive Education), and had continued to discharge his duties satisfactorily. His services were terminated on the alleged ground of non-fulfilment of the requisite qualification and not by a mere efflux of the contractual term. Therefore, once the termination was found to be unsustainable for want of notice and opportunity of hearing, the writ appellant could not have been left to suffer the consequences of the very order which had been quashed. 3. Learned Senior Advocate, would further submit that the writ appellant has specifically pleaded that similarly situated persons, appointed under the same advertisement and on identical terms and conditions, have continued in service, whereas the writ appellant alone has been denied continuation. It is contended that such differential treatment is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that the writ appellant has subsequently acquired the requisite qualification and certification under the applicable norms and, therefore, his claim 4 could not have been rejected without considering these relevant circumstances. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the review petition, failed to consider this material aspect, though the same was specifically urged in the review petition. 4. He would also submit that the petitioner was continued in service till the order dated 22.02.2019 passed by respondent authorities and even during pendency of the petition he continued in his service. The petitioner had worked for several years and therefore he is entitled for his reinstatment particularly when the impugned order dated 22.02.2019 has been quashed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge erred in observing that the appointment of the petitioner for a limited period and his contractual employment and its tenure has expired. Whereas on the date of the order dated 22.02.2019, he continued in service. 5. It is thus submitted that the observation that the writ appellant's tenure had expired is contrary to the factual circumstances of the case and overlooks his continued engagement over the years as well as the continuation of similarly situated employees. The denial of reinstatement after quashing the termination order virtually permits the writ appellant to continue suffering the consequences of an order which has already been held to be illegal, thereby rendering the relief granted by the Court illusory. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned observation denying reinstatement be set aside and the respondents be directed to consider the writ appellant's case for reinstatement/continuation in 5 service in accordance with law and on the same footing as similarly situated employees. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 would submit that the writ petition was the second round of litigation arising out of the same cause of action and that the writ appellant's contractual engagement as Block Resource Person (BRP) was not continued beyond 31.03.2017 as he did not fulfil the requisite and essential qualification prescribed under the advertisement dated 12.12.2011. It is submitted that the petitioner had initially been appointed on contract subject to the condition that, though he did not possess the prescribed qualification at the time of appointment, he would acquire the requisite Diploma/Degree in Special Education and the necessary registration/training within the stipulated period of two years. Despite extension of his contractual engagement up to the year 2017, the petitioner failed to acquire the prescribed qualification and, consequently, the competent Selection Committee decided not to renew his contractual appointment with effect from 01.04.2017. 7. It is further submitted that, pursuant to the earlier order of this Court dated 11.10.2018 passed in WPS No.202/2018, the petitioner's case was reconsidered in the light of the judgment dated 07.11.2017 passed in WPS No.1572/2017 and after considering the relevant records and affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the Collector-cum-Mission Director 6 passed the order dated 22.02.2019 removing him from the contractual engagement. Learned counsel would submit that the said order was based upon the petitioner's continued failure to satisfy the prescribed eligibility conditions and was a reasoned decision taken by the competent authority; therefore, no vested right of continuation or reinstatement accrued in favour of the petitioner after expiry/non-renewal of his contractual tenure. The learned Single Judge has rightly considered that the contractual tenure of the petitioner was for a limited period and his tenure has expired. It is accordingly submitted that the writ appeal, seeking reinstatement in a contractual post after expiry of the contractual engagement, deserves to be dismissed. 8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/State would support the submissions advanced on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4 and submit that the writ appellant was appointed purely on contractual basis for a limited period and his continuation was subject to fulfilment of the prescribed eligibility conditions. Since the writ appellant admittedly failed to acquire the requisite qualification within the stipulated period, no enforceable right accrued in his favour for further renewal or continuation after expiry of the contractual term. It is further submitted that pursuant to the earlier directions of this Court, the writ appellant's case was duly reconsidered by the competent authority after affording him an opportunity of hearing, and the order dated 22.02.2019 was thereafter passed on the basis of the applicable eligibility 7 conditions. Thus, merely because the earlier order of termination was set aside on the ground of violation of natural justice, the writ appellant cannot claim an automatic right of reinstatement or continuation in a contractual post after expiry of the engagement, and the learned Single Judge has rightly declined such relief. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition as well as writ appeal. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, the main question which arises for consideration is whether, after setting aside the order dated 22.02.2019 on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, the writ appellant was entitled as a matter of right to reinstatement in the contractual post. In our considered view, the answer has to be in the negative. The writ appellant's initial appointment was admittedly contractual and was for a limited period. His appointment was subject to fulfilment of the prescribed eligibility conditions, and it is not in dispute that the contractual engagement was not renewed beyond 31.03.2017 on account of his failure to acquire the requisite qualification prescribed under the advertisement. The subsequent order dated 22.02.2019 was passed pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court in the earlier round of litigation and after consideration of the writ appellant's case by the competent authority. Thus, merely because the subsequent order was set aside for failure to afford an opportunity 8 of hearing, such setting aside cannot, by itself, confer upon the writ appellant a substantive right to continue in a contractual engagement which had otherwise come to an end. 11. It is relevant to notice here, the relevant part of the order dated 22.02.2019 Annexure P/1, which reads as under: "विज्ञापन में शैक्षणिक योग्योता क्रमेंक-1 (ब) के अनुसा र श्री उत्तम सिंसाह सिसादा र (साविदा ) विशेष सिशेक्षा म पदा अनुरूप विप्लो!म ए विग्री ह!नु अविनु र्य% था , विकेन्तु श्री सिसादा र अह%तु प)र्ण% नुह+ केरतु ह, । विज्ञा पनु क्रम के- 1330 दिदानु के-12.12.2011 के शेतु% क्रम के- 1 (दा) " सि1तु र्य!ग्र्यतु धा र आदाके नु मिमलोनु के6 स्थि8वितु म (आर.सा. आई.) सा म न्र्यतु प्रा प्तु विकेसा भी प ठ्यक्रम हतु नु म विकेतु स्नु तुके भी प त्र ह!गे, विकेन्तु साबमिधातु आदाके के! 2 ष% के6 अमिधा म प ठ्यक्रम प)र्ण% केरनु अविनु र्य% ह!गे । " इसाके अनुसा र उक्तु केम%चा र के! दा! ष% के भीतुर अह%तु एC प)र्ण% विकेर्य जा नु था , विकेन्तु उनुके द्वा र सामर्य-साम के भीतुर अह%तु एC प)र्ण% नु केरनु के के रर्ण दिदानु के 01.04.2017 सा सा नुनुकेरर्ण सा Fद्धिH हतु प त्र नुह+ प र्य गेर्य । सामिमवितु नु सा% साम्मवितु सा अनुशेसा विकेर्य गेर्य विके उक्तु साविदा केम%चा र के! साविदा सा भीतुJ विनुर्यमK के प्रा धा नु अनुसा र साविदा सा म विनुरन्तुर नु केरतु हुए साविदा सा सा पFथाके केरनु हतु अनुशेसा विकेर्य गेर्य । उपर!क्तु तुथ्र्यK ए अभिभीलोखोंK के आधा र पर श्री उत्तम सिंसाह सिसादा र ब.आर.प. साम शे (साविदा ) लोPलो)गे के! विनुर्यस्थिक्तु आदाशे म उल्लोखिखोंतु विनुर्यम/शेतुS के आधा र पर तुत्के लो प्राभी सा साविदा सा सा पFथाके विकेर्य जा तु हP ।" 12. The submission of learned Senior Advocate for the writ appellant that the writ appellant continued to work till the passing of the order dated 22.02.2019 and that similarly situated persons were continued in service, in our considered opinion, does not alter the legal position. Continuation of a contractual employee, by itself, does not create a vested or indefeasible right to renewal of the contract, particularly when the engagement is governed by the conditions stipulated in the advertisement and the applicable scheme. The writ appellant cannot claim reinstatement merely on 9 the ground that he had rendered services for several years. Likewise, the plea of parity with other employees cannot result in issuance of a positive direction for continuation contrary to the governing eligibility conditions. The fact that the writ appellant may have subsequently acquired the requisite qualification also cannot retrospectively create a right to continuation for the period for which the contractual engagement was not renewed. 13. Although the learned Senior Advocate vehemently argued that the petitioner’s services had been continued, by an interim order passed by this Court, however, upon perusal of the order-sheets of the writ petition, it appears that no such interim order was passed in the writ petition. At this juncture, the learned Senior Advocate tenders his apology and submits that he had not verified the same from the record and admits that no interim order was passed by the learned Single Judge in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 also submits that the petitioner was not continued in service thereafter, in terms of the order dated 22.02.2019. 14. We are also unable to accept the contention that denial of reinstatement would amount to permitting the respondents to reap the benefit of an order which has already been quashed. The order dated 22.02.2019 was set aside by the learned Single Judge only on the ground that it had been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing. The quashing of such order does not amount to a declaration that the writ appellant was 10 entitled to contractual continuation, nor does it obliterate the undisputed fact that the contractual engagement itself was for a limited period and was not renewed beyond the prescribed term. The learned Single Judge, therefore, rightly distinguished between the invalidity of the order dated 22.02.2019 on account of breach of natural justice and the writ appellant's independent claim for continuation in contractual service. Once the contractual tenure had expired/non-renewal had taken effect, there could be no automatic reinstatement merely as a consequence of quashing the subsequent order. 15. As regards the plea of discrimination on the ground that similarly situated employees have continued in service, we find that the writ appellant has not been able to demonstrate any enforceable right to continuation merely on the basis of such alleged parity. Equality under Articles 14 and 16 cannot be invoked to perpetuate a benefit contrary to the governing terms of appointment or eligibility conditions. In the absence of a substantive right to renewal, the writ appellant cannot claim continuation solely because some other persons were allegedly continued. The learned Single Judge, therefore, committed no error in declining the relief of reinstatement. 16. It is also significant that the review petition preferred by the writ appellant was dismissed in limine and no error apparent on the face of the record or any other ground warranting interference in review jurisdiction has been demonstrated. The writ appellant, in 11 substance, seeks reconsideration of the very relief which was consciously declined by the learned Single Judge. The scope of the present intra-Court appeal does not warrant interference with the discretionary relief granted by the learned Single Judge when the conclusion reached is consistent with the contractual nature of the writ appellant's engagement. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the writ appellant has failed to establish any legal or enforceable right to reinstatement or continuation in the contractual post. The learned Single Judge was justified in setting aside the order dated 22.02.2019 on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, while at the same time declining reinstatement in view of the limited and contractual nature of the writ appellant's engagement. We find no infirmity either in the order dated 05.02.2026 passed in WPS No.2709/2019 or in the order dated 20.04.2026 passed in REVP No.104/2026 warranting interference in the present writ appeal. 18. Accordingly, the writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- Sd Sd (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok