1 CGHC010300252026 2026:CGHC:37017-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 780 of 2026 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Skill And Development Technical Education And Employment Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, Police Station And Post- Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Commissioner Through Directorate Of Employment And Training, Indrawati Bhawan, Block No.- 04, First Floor, Police Station And Post- Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Joint Director Through Office Of The Directorate, Saddu, By The Side Of Govt. Iti, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Principal Through Govt. Industrial Training Institute, Dondi Lohara, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus Sanjay Kumar Bhagat S/o Late Shri Ram Gopal Aged About 41 Years R/o 6/29, Anaaj Line, Supela Market, Supela, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, Dy. Advocate General. For Respondent(s) : Dr. Veena Nair, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 19/08/2026 1. Heard Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the appellant/State, and Dr. Veena Nair, learned counsel ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.08.21 10:53:08 +0530 2 for the respondent, on I.A. No. 02, which is an application for condonation of delay of 195 days in preferring the present appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the present writ appeal arises out of the order dated 24.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 2310/2019, which has been decided along with the batch of other writ petitions, including W.P.(S) No. 3218/2016. In another case, bearing Writ Appeal No. 738/2025, this Court refused to condone the delay and dismissed the writ appeal filed by the appellant. The State preferred SLP(C) Diary No. 12691/2026 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in which the SLP was allowed vide order dated 26.05.2026 and, after condoning the delay in filing the writ appeal, the matter was remitted back to this Court for deciding the writ appeal on merits. Thereafter, this Court has decided Writ Appeal No. 738/2025 on merits vide order dated 17.08.2026 and, thus, in all the proceedings, the present appeal has been filed with a delay of 195 days. He would also submit that since the Hon’ble Supreme Court has condoned the delay in an identical writ petition which was decided by a common order, the delay in the present writ appeal may also be condoned. 3. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and in view of the peculiar facts of the case and the grounds assigned in the application (I.A. No. 02), the same is allowed. The delay of 195 days in preferring the present writ appeal is hereby condoned. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that the issue involved in this writ appeal has already been considered and decided 3 by this Court vide judgment dated 13.03.2026 in Writ Appeal No.191/2026, whereby this Court has held as under:- “6. At the outset, it would be apposite to notice the precise nature of the direction issued by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has not directed that the respondents shall stand automatically regularized in service. The direction is to examine their individual records and qualifications and thereafter forward the proposal to the General Administration Department for consideration of their cases for regularization. The competent authority has thus been left to undertake the exercise in accordance with the applicable rules, policy and the material available on record. 7. The learned Single Judge has also recorded certain factual findings which have considerable bearing upon the controversy. It was noticed that the respondents (writ petitioners) had been working for about 15 to 17 years; that they possessed the requisite qualifications; that their engagement followed publication of advertisement and a selection process; and that, according to the material placed before the Court, sufficient vacant posts were available. It was further noticed that the consideration of their cases would not adversely affect the ongoing regular recruitment process. 8. The principal submission of the appellants/State is founded upon the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Uma Devi (supra). There can be no quarrel with the proposition that mere long continuation in temporary or contractual service does not, by itself, confer an indefeasible right to regularization and that constitutional requirements governing public employment cannot be bypassed. However, the aforesaid principle cannot be read divorced from the factual circumstances noticed by the learned Single Judge. Significantly, the learned Single Judge himself considered the ratio of Uma Devi (supra) and referred to the distinction between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. The learned Single Judge thereafter considered the manner in which the respondents had been engaged, their qualifications, the length of their service and the availability of sanctioned vacant posts. 9. In the present case, therefore, the learned Single Judge has not proceeded on the premise that every contractual employee completing a particular length of service is entitled, as a matter of right, to regularization. The direction is 4 founded upon the peculiar factual matrix of the case and requires the competent authority to consider the individual cases of the respondents in accordance with law. The learned Single Judge, while considering the nature of engagement of the respondents and the availability of vacant posts, has recorded specific findings in paragraphs 17 and 18 of the impugned order. The relevant observations are reproduced hereinbelow: “17. From the bare perusal of the reports and various affidavits places on record before this Court, it is quite vivid that the petitioners are working since last 15-17 years and they are having requisite qualifications for appointment as Training Officers Class-III (Non- gazatted) and 589 posts are lying vacant including the Training Officers Class-III who are working on contract basis like petitioners even after filling up of 920 posts for which advertisement has been issued whereas number of the petitioners is 302 as such, the right of candidates who will be selected through ongoing process initiated on 13.05.2023 will not be adversely affected. 18. Considering the factual matrix, it is quite vivid that this Court can issue the direction for regularization of the petitioners as they are having the requisite qualifications, they have been recruited through substantially complying the process of selection as they were selected after calling candidates through publication of advertisement, on the basis of educational and technical qualifications, CTI certificate and imparting education in ITI as Guest Teaching Faculty member, as such, it cannot be held that it is a back door entry or de hors the Constitutional provisions. In such a situation, the State deserves direction from this Court to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization of their services.” 10. The nature and extent of the direction issued by the learned Single Judge are further apparent from paragraphs 22 to 24 of the impugned order, which read as under: “22. In the light of the above judgments and also considering the fact that the posts are lying vacant, the petitioners have already worked for more than 15-17 years and all of them must have been over aged, appointed through following selection process which is not dehors the Constitutional scheme, and the 5 petitioners possess the qualification for appointment on the regular post, I am of the view that a writ of mandamus can be issued to the State for considering the case of the petitioners for regularization taking into consideration the report of the Committee and other relevant materials as discussed above. 23. Accordingly, it is directed that the Secretary, Skill Development Technical and Employment Department will sent a proposal to the General Administration Department alongwith the entire material, reports, vacancy positions, etc. within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order and obtained approval from the General Administration Department for considering the case of the petitioners for regularization. It is also directed that before sending the records to the Secretary, General Administration Department, they will examine the individual records and their qualification for granting approval for regularization. The Secretary, General Administration Department will grant necessary approval within further 2 months from the date of receipt of proposal by the respondent No. 1. 24. It is made clear that while considering the case of the petitioners for regularization, the ongoing selection process initiated in pursuance of the advertisement dated 13.05.2023 will not be adversely affected. This exercise be carried out within stipulated time period given by this Court.” 11. A plain reading of the aforesaid observations and directions makes it clear that, notwithstanding the expression “direction for regularization” occurring in paragraph 18, the learned Single Judge has not directed automatic regularization of the respondents. The actual operative direction requires the competent authorities to examine the individual records and qualifications of the respondents, consider the vacancy position and other relevant material, and thereafter obtain the necessary approval from the General Administration Department. The ultimate decision, therefore, has been left to the competent authority. The aforesaid limited direction, in our considered view, cannot be equated with a direction for regularization de hors the constitutional scheme, nor does it dispense with the requirement of consideration of the individual cases in accordance with the applicable rules and Government policy. 6 12. The Supreme Court in Jaggo (supra) 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”. In Shripal (supra) the Supreme Court cautions against a mechanical and blind reliance on Umadevi (Supra to deny regularization to temporary employees in the absence of statutory rules. 13. Very recently in Bhola Nath (supra) the Supreme Court summarized the law as under at para 14 : “14. In light of our discussion, in the foregoing paragraphs, we summarize our conclusions as follows: 1. The respondent-State was not justified in continuing the appellants on sanctioned vacant posts for over a decade under the nomenclature of contractual engagement and thereafter denying them consideration for regularization. II. Abrupt discontinuance of such long-standing engagement solely on the basis of contractual nomenclature, without either recording cogent reasons or passing a speaking order, is manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. III. Contractual stipulations purporting to bar claims for regularization cannot override constitutional guarantees. Acceptance of contractual terms does not amount to waiver of fundamental rights, and contractual stipulations cannot immunize arbitrary State action from constitutional scrutiny. IV The State, as a model employer, cannot rely on contractual labels or mechanical application of Umadevi (supra) to justify prolonged ad-hocism or to discard long-serving employees in a manner inconsistent with fairness, dignity and constitutional governance. V. In view of the foregoing discussion, we direct the respondent-State to forthwith regularize the services of all the appellants against the sanctioned posts to which they were initially appointed. The appellants shall be entitled to all consequential service benefits accruing from the date of this judgment.” 14. The aforesaid principles, however, have to be applied 7 having regard to the nature of the relief granted in the present case. As noticed hereinabove, the learned Single Judge has not directed automatic regularization of the respondents, but has directed consideration of their individual cases by the competent authority. 15. Another significant aspect is that the learned Single Judge has not directed the State to dispense with the constitutional requirement of recruitment. On the contrary, the order specifically safeguards the ongoing selection process pursuant to the advertisement dated 13.05.2023 and provides that the consideration of the respondents herein for regularization shall not adversely affect the said process. 16. The submission that the learned Single Judge has directed creation or sanction of posts also does not appear to be borne out from the operative portion of the order. The Court has proceeded on the basis of the vacancy position placed before it and has directed the competent authorities to examine the individual cases of the respondents and take a decision in accordance with law. There is, therefore, no direction to the State to create posts where none exist. 17. As regards the reliance placed upon the Circular dated 05.03.2008, the said submission also does not, in our considered opinion, furnish a ground to interfere with the order under appeal. The learned Single Judge has not directed regularization of the respondents under the said Circular. The direction issued is to consider their cases for regularization by the competent authorities on the basis of the facts and circumstances noticed in the order and the applicable legal framework. Thus, the question whether the respondents satisfy the requirements of any existing scheme or whether any relaxation/approval is legally permissible has been left to the competent authorities. 18. The plea of over-age also cannot, at this stage, be considered as determinative of the entire controversy. The learned Single Judge has not directed appointment of the respondents to regular posts de hors the prescribed procedure. What has been directed is consideration of their cases by the competent authority. If any statutory or regulatory requirement regarding age, qualification or other eligibility condition applies, the same would necessarily fall for consideration by the competent authority while undertaking the exercise directed by the learned Single Judge. 19. We are also conscious of the settled principle that 8 regularization cannot be claimed merely on the basis of long service. But the present matter has to be examined in the context in which the learned Single Judge issued the direction. The respondents had been working continuously for a considerable period, their qualifications were not in dispute, their engagement was preceded by a selection process, and the learned Single Judge found that the available vacancy position justified consideration of their cases. 20. In this regard, the learned Single Judge also noticed the subsequent developments during the pendency of the writ petitions, including the constitution of a Committee and the report submitted in relation to the contractual Training Officers. The Court thereafter directed the competent authorities to examine the individual records and qualifications and process the matter at the Government level. 21. Thus, on an overall consideration of the matter, we are of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant interference in exercise of our appellate jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge has not granted automatic regularization to the respondents, but has left the ultimate decision to the competent authority after examination of their individual cases in accordance with law. 22. It is made clear that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge shall not be construed as conferring an automatic right of regularization upon the respondents. Their cases shall be considered individually by the competent authority strictly in accordance with the applicable rules, Government policy, availability of sanctioned posts and other relevant requirements governing such consideration. 23. For the reasons aforesaid, we find no merit in the writ appeal. The order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.3218/2016 and connected matters does not call for interference. 24. The writ appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.” 5. They further submitted that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of Writ Appeal No.738/2025, this appeal may also dismissed in the same terms. 6. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel 9 for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to Writ Appeal No.738/2025, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in Writ Appeal No.738/2025. 7. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 17.08.2026 passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No.738/2025. Sd/- Sd/- SSdd Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok