1 CGHC010408012025 2026:CGHC:36450-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 738 of 2025 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Chief Secretary, Chhattisgarh Govt. Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh., 2 - Principal Secretary Chhattisgarh Govt. Koshal Vikas Technical Education And Rojgar Department Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Principal Secretary Chhattisgarh Govt. Man Power And Planning Department Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Secretary Chhattisgarh Govt. Koshal Vikas Technical Education And Rojgar Department Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Commissioner Directorate Employment And Training Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District -Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Joint Director Directorate Employment And Training Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District -Raipur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Joint Director Training Industrial Training Institute, Ambikapur Zone, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 8 - Principal/ Training Superintendent/ Institute In Charge Industrial Training Institute, Chirmiri, Ambikapur Zone, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 9 - Principal/ Training Superintendent/ Institute Incharge Industrial Training Institute, Manendra Garh, Ambikapur Zone, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 10 - Principal/ Training Superintendent/ Institute Incharge Industrial Training Institute, Patthalgaon, Ambikapur Zone, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 11 - Principal/ Training Superintendent/ Institute Incharge Industrial Training Institute, Kunkuri, Ambikapur Zone, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 12 - Principal/ Training Superintendent/ Institute Incharge Industrial Training Institute, Wadrafnagar, Ambikapur Zone, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 13 - Principal/ Training Superintendent/ Institute Incharge Industrial Training Institute, Pratappur, Ambikapur Zone, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 14 - Principal/ Training Superintendent/ Institute Incharge Industrial Training Institute, Ambikapur, Ambikapur Zone, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 15 - Principal/ Training Superintendent/ Institute Incharge Industrial Training Institute, Rajpur, Ambikapur Zone, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 16 - Principal/ Training Superintendent/ Institute Incharge Industrial Training Institute, Katghodi, Ambikapur Zone, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 17 - Principal/ Training Superintendent/ Institute Incharge Industrial Training Institute, Sitapur, Ambikapur Zone, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh Appellant(s) versus 1 - Din Dayal Sihashre S/o Sh. Rajaram Sihashre Aged About 44 Years Working As Fitter Instructor, Govt. I T I, Chirmiri, Ambikapur Zone R/o Vill And P O Choriya Thana Saragaon Teh Champa Distt Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh., 2 - Lalit Kumar Pandey S/o Sh. Babu Ram Pandey Aged About 42 Years Working As Diesel Mechanic Instructor, Govt. I T I, Chirmiri, Ambikapur Zone R/o Near Jagannath Mandir Pondi P O West Chirmiri., District - Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Mithilesh Kumar Harmukh S/o Sh. Jeevdhan Harmukh Aged About 40 Years Working As Fitter Instructor, Govt. I T I, Chirmiri, Ambikapur Zone R/o Q N- G/4 Sichai Colony Amapara Balod District - Balod, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sanjay Kumar Chauhan S/o Sh. Mitthu Ram Chauhan Aged About 38 Years Working As Electrician Instructor, Govt. I T I, Chirmiri, Ambikapur Zone R/o Jute Mill Kabir Chowk Raigarh Distt- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., 5 - Ram Babu Shukla S/o Sh. Anirudda Pd Shukla A Aged About 36 Years Working As Copa Instructor, Govt. I T I, Chirmiri, Ambikapur Zone R/o Vill Dumannil P O Sonawani District - Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 6 - Pramod Kumar Tripathi S/o Sh. Hari Shankar Tripathi Aged About 43 Years Working As Fitter Instructor, Govt. I T I, Manendra Garh Ambikapur Zone R/o 3 Infront Of Durga Dham Mandir Amakherha Road Manendragarh , District - Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 7 - Vikram Singh Gawre S/o Sh. Fere Ram Gawre Aged About 36 Years Working As Diesel Mechanic Instructor, Govt. I T I, Manendragarh Ambikapur Zone R/o Q. No.- 7/ D Street- 5 Sector- 02 Bhilai Nagar Distt. Durg , Chhattisgarh., 8 - Sanjay Kumar Sonwani S/o Sh. Rajendra Prasad Aged About 36 Years Working As Copa Instructor, Govt. I T I, Patthalgaon Ambikapur Zone R/o West Chirmiri Colony Pondry Premnagar , District - Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. 9 - Filmon Toppo S/o Sh. Nohar Say Toppo Aged About 44 Years Working As W C S/ E D Instructor, Govt. I T I, Kunkury Ambikapur Zone R/o Vill Taragarh P O Minimuna The- Lailunga Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., 10 - Dinesh Kumar Sahu S/o Sh. Sonu Ram Sanu, Aged About 42 Years Working As Fitter Instructor, Govt. I T I, Wadrafnagar Ambikapur Zone R/o Vill Dumardih P O Patora Ward- 20, Near Deepshikha School Thana Utai Distt. Durg Thana Saragaon Teh Champa Distt Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh., 11 - Dhanendra Kumar Chandrakar S/o Sh. Ganesh Ram Chandrakar Aged About 35 Years Working As Diesel Mechanic Instructor, Govt. I T I, Wadrafnagar Ambikapur Zone R/o Vill And P O Bedmacha Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh., 12 - Chandra Shekhar Katiyar S/o Sh. Sadhari Lal Katiyar, Aged About 44 Years Working As Welder Instructor, Govt. I T I, Pratappur Ambikapur Zone R/o Qn- 20, I T I Colony Ambikapur , District - Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 13 - Muhammad Issa Khan S/o Sh. Mohammad Iqbal Khan Aged About 37 Years Working As R A C Instructor, Govt. I T I, Ambikapur R/o Qn- 17, Gandhi Chowk Iti Colony Ambikapur , District - Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 14 - Bajrang Chauhan S/o Sh. Tij Ram Chauhan Aged About 41 Years Working As Fitter Instructor, Govt. I T I, Ambikapur R/o Qn- 18, Gandhi Chowk Iti Colony Ambikapur District -Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4 15 - Narendra Kumar Chandrawanshi S/o Sh. Umend Ram Chandrawanshi, Aged About 41 Years Working As R A C Instructor, Govt. I T I, Ambikapur R/o Asha Nagar Titurdih Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh., 16 - Dilip Kumar Bareth S/o Ram Dulari Bareth Aged About 44 Years Working As Motor Mechanic Vehicle Instructor, Govt. I T I, Ambikapur R/o Qn- 24, I T I Colony Ambikapur , District - Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 17 - Ram Sanehi Verma S/o Sh. Angad Ram Verma Aged About 47 Years Working As Fitter Instructor, Govt. I T I, Ambikapur R/o Vill And P O Siltara Teh Dharsiwa Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh., 18 - Dilip Singh S/o Sh. Durga Singh Aged About 42 Years Working As Turner Instructor, Govt. I T I, Ambikapur R/o Vill Junwani P O Lakhanpur District - Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 19 - Jaisant Prasad Kushwaha S/o Sh Sukh Dev Prasad Aged About 43 Years Working As Machinist Instructor, Govt. I T I, Ambikapur Zone R/o Vill And P O- Latori Banaras Road Distt. Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., 20 - Ishmail Lakra S/o Sh. Viktor Lakra Aged About 43 Years Working As Electrician Instructor, Govt. I T I, Rajpur, Ambikapur Zone R/o Vill Timorla P O Gholeng Distt Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 21 - Pranay Kumar Lal S/o Sh. Prabhakar Lal Aged About 36 Years Working As Electrician Instructor, Govt. I T I, Katghodi, Ambikapur Zone R/o Hn- 78 Vill- Kukricholi P O Bhaisma Thana Urga Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh., 22 - Sharwan Kumar S/o Sh. Mahipati Ram Aged About 39 Years Working As Welder Instructor, Govt. I T I, Katghodi, Ambikapur Zone R/o H N- 258 B, Krishna Nagar 1 Vill- Namnakala P O- Ambikapur , District - Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 23 - Satish Kumar Banaphar S/o Sh. Lachchhi Ram Banaphar Aged About 36 Years Working As Electrician Instructor, Govt. I T I, Ambikapur Zone R/o Vill Budena P O- Mahant Teh.- Nawagarh Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh., ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, GA For respective Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate, Mr. Harshwardhan Parganiha (through VC) assisted by Mss. Manubha 5 Shankar and Mr. Manoj Makkar (through VC) assisted by Ms. Ranjana Jaiswal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per, Bibhu Datta Guru, J. 17/08/2026 1. The present writ appeal calls in question the order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.3218/2016 (Din Dayal Sihashre & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the learned Single Judge, taking WPS No.3218/2016 as the lead case, disposed of the batch of writ petitions with a direction to the competent authorities to consider the cases of the petitioners for regularization in accordance with the observations and directions contained in the said order. 2. (a) Facts, in the nutshell, are that the writ petitioners were working as Training Officers/Instructors on contractual basis and had been engaged pursuant to advertisements issued by the Department. The learned Single Judge noticed that the petitioners had continued to work for a period of about 15 to 17 years, possessed the requisite qualifications and had been selected through a process involving publication of advertisement and consideration of their educational and technical qualifications. The learned Single Judge further noticed the availability of vacant posts and recorded a finding that the engagement of the petitioners could not, in the facts of the case, be treated as a back-door entry or as being de hors the constitutional scheme. 6 (b) The learned Single Judge, accordingly, directed the Secretary, Skill Development, Technical and Employment Department to forward a proposal, along with the relevant material, reports and vacancy position, to the General Administration Department for consideration of the cases of the petitioners for regularization. It was further directed that the individual records and qualifications of the petitioners be examined before forwarding the proposal. The learned Single Judge also made it clear that the ongoing selection process pursuant to the advertisement dated 13.05.2023 would not be adversely affected. (c) Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the State preferred the writ appeal. The writ appeal, however, was initially dismissed by this Court on the ground of delay. By order dated 03.11.2025, this Court noticed that the appeal had been preferred with a delay of 135 days and found that the delay had not been satisfactorily explained. The application seeking condonation of delay was accordingly rejected and, consequently, the writ appeal also stood dismissed. The merits of the order passed by the learned Single Judge were not examined. (d) The matter thereafter travelled to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.8186 of 2026 arising out of SLP (Civil) Diary No.12691/2026 (State of Chhattisgarh & Others v. Deen Dayal Sihashre & Others). The Hon’ble Supreme Court, by order dated 17.08.2026, condoned the delay and granted leave. Taking note of the fact that the respondents therein had no objection to rehearing of the matter on merits, the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the order whereby this Court had refused to condone the delay and remitted the matter back to 7 this Court for consideration of the writ appeal on merits. We are, accordingly, required to examine the challenge to the order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge on merits. 3. (i) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in directing consideration of the cases of the respondents for regularization. It is contended that the respondents were admittedly engaged on contractual basis and their contractual engagement did not confer any right upon them to seek regular appointment or regularization. (ii) Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others v. Uma Devi (3) & Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1, and would submit that the High Court cannot ordinarily issue a direction for absorption or regularization unless the initial appointment itself was made in accordance with the constitutional scheme. Reliance has also been placed upon State of Rajasthan v. Daya Lal, (2011) 2 SCC 429, to contend that mere continuation in temporary or contractual service for a long period does not create a vested right to regularization. (iii) It is further submitted that the formulation of a regularization scheme falls within the executive domain and that the Court cannot direct creation of posts or formulate a scheme for regularization. It is also contended that the respondents had become over-aged and that such over-age, by itself, cannot confer any right upon them to claim regular 8 appointment. Learned counsel has further referred to the Circular dated 05.03.2008, contending that the one-time scheme contained therein was confined to persons engaged on or before 31.12.1997 and would have no application to the respondents who were appointed subsequently. 4. (A) Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would support the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has not directed automatic or blanket regularization of the respondents. Rather, the direction is only to consider their individual cases by the competent authority after examining their qualifications, service particulars, availability of sanctioned vacant posts and other relevant material. (B) It is further submitted that the respondents were selected pursuant to advertisements and have continuously discharged the duties of Training Officers/Instructors for several years. The learned Single Judge, upon consideration of the material placed before the Court, found that the selection process was not a mere back-door entry and that a substantial number of posts remained vacant. It is therefore contended that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge is only a direction for consideration and does not amount to an order of regularization. He would submit that the Writ Petitioners are having requisite qualification for appointment on the regular post prior to the date of joining of service and there is no adverse ACR against them, therefore, they are entitled for regularization. In support of their contention, they would place reliance upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Jaggo v. Union of India & Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, 9 Shripal & Another v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221 & Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand & Others, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 129. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 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 10 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 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 11 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. 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 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. 12 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 13 does it dispense with the requirement of consideration of the individual cases in accordance with the applicable rules and Government policy. 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 14 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 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 15 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 regularization cannot 16 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 17 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. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Rahul/Gowri