1 CGHC010351602026 2026:CGHC:39634 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6672 of 2026 Nitin Prakash Waghe S/o R.P. Waghe, Aged About 46 Years R/o Vinobha Bhave Nagar, P.O. Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Housing And Environment, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2. Acting Chairman, Department Of Rent Control, Old R.D.A. Building Shastri Chowk, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3. Registrar, Department Of Rent Control, Old R.D.A. Building Shastri Chowk, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Prachi Diwan, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 10/09/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner is challenging the order dated 29.07.2026 (Annexure P-5), whereby the petitioner has been terminated from service, as well as the order dated 07.08.2026 (Annexure P-6), whereby his representation has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a Driver on contract basis and has been continuously working since 01.02.2016. His contractual engagement was extended from time to time and continued till 29.07.2026, when his services were JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.09.11 11:53:13 +0530 2 discontinued. He further submits that the petitioner thereafter preferred a representation, which was rejected vide order dated 07.08.2026 bearing Letter No. 289/EST/-12-71/23, on the ground that, pursuant to the enforcement of new educational qualifications, the minimum qualification for the post of Driver is 10th pass, whereas the petitioner possesses the qualification of 8th pass. She submits that, considering the petitioner’s long-standing service since 2016, his contractual engagement ought to have been extended. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the contractual period of the petitioner came to an end on 29.07.2026, as his engagement was for a period commencing from 30.07.2025. She further submits that the petitioner’s representation has rightly been rejected in view of Rule/297/2025-GAD-3 dated 19.06.2026, whereby the minimum educational qualification prescribed for the post of Driver is 10th pass. Since the petitioner possesses only 8th pass qualification, he was not eligible for further engagement. She submits that there is no illegality in the impugned orders and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. From the material available on record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was engaged on contract basis and his last contractual engagement was for the period commencing from 30.07.2025, which came to an end on 29.07.2026. A contractual employee has no vested right to seek continuation or extension of the contractual engagement beyond the period for which he was engaged. Merely because the petitioner had rendered services since 01.02.2016 and his engagement 3 had been extended from time to time, no indefeasible right accrued in his favour for further extension of the contract. 6. It is also evident that, under Rule/297/2025-GAD-3 dated 19.06.2026, the minimum educational qualification prescribed for the post of Driver is 10th pass. Admittedly, the petitioner possesses only 8th pass qualification. Therefore, the petitioner does not fulfill the qualification prescribed for further engagement as Driver. The respondents cannot be directed to continue the contractual engagement of a person who does not fulfill the qualification prescribed under the applicable rules. 7. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity either in the order dated 29.07.2026 (Annexure P-5) or in the order dated 07.08.2026 (Annexure P-6). The fact that the petitioner had rendered services for a considerable period cannot, by itself, confer any right upon him to continue in contractual service contrary to the subsequently prescribed eligibility criteria. 8. Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Jyoti