1 WPS No.4711 of 2026 CGHC010228852026 2026:CGHC:42767 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Order Reserved on 29-09-2026) (Final Order Delivered on 01-10-2026) (Final Order Uploaded on 01-10-2026) WPS No. 4711 of 2026 Saroj Singh W/o Late Roop Singh Aged About 54 Years R/o Mahamaya Vihar, Warehouse Road, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 – State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Skill Development, Technical Education And Employment Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate of Employment and Training Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Block-4, First Floor, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Joint Director (Training) Industrial Training Institute Regional Office Bilaspur Region And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Principal Industrial Training Institute Koni, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Advocate For State : Mr. Saumitra Kesharwani, PL ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.10.01 17:28:36 +0530 2 WPS No.4711 of 2026 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru) CAV Order 1. The petitioner has called in question the order dated 11.02.2026 passed by respondent No.2, whereby her claim for regularization on the post of Training Officer (Sewing Technology) has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Training Officer on 28.05.2009 and has continued to discharge her duties for a considerable period. It is submitted that the petitioner along with other similarly situated persons had earlier approached this Court by filing separate writ petitions. The petition filed by the petitioner herein was registered as W.P.(S) No.1275/2018, wherein this Court, vide common order dated 01.05.2025, directed the respondents to consider her pending representation for regularization keeping in view the circular dated 05.03.2008 issued by the State Government and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaggo vs. Union of India & Others, (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3826. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that while considering the petitioner's representation, the competent authority has not considered the judgment in Jaggo (supra) in its proper perspective. It is contended that the impugned order proceeds essentially on the basis of the circular dated 05.03.2008 and rejects the petitioner's claim on the ground that her appointment was subsequent to the period mentioned in the said circular. According to learned counsel, the very issue which was 3 WPS No.4711 of 2026 required to be examined in the light of Jaggo (supra) has therefore not been considered by the authority. It is further submitted that the respondents, in their return filed before this Court, have now relied upon another circular dated 01.06.2009, contending that the same places restrictions upon regularization of contractual employees. Learned counsel submits that the said circular dated 01.06.2009 was neither referred to in the earlier writ petition nor made the basis of the impugned order dated 11.02.2026 and, therefore, the respondents cannot supplement the reasons contained in the impugned order by subsequently relying upon a circular which was not considered by the competent authority while passing the order. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner was appointed on contractual basis and her appointment was governed by the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contract Appointment) Rules, 2004 and the subsequent amendments. It is submitted that there is no vested right in the petitioner to claim regularization merely on account of long continuation in service. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed after considering the applicable policy and the directions contained in the earlier order of this Court. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel and perused the material available on record. 5. This Court in W.P.(S) No.1275/2018 & other connected matters by order dated 01.05.2025 has passed the following order: 4 WPS No.4711 of 2026 8. Given the aforesaid facts and considering the aspects that the claim of the petitioners till date has not been considered and finalized by the respondent authorities, these petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to obtain necessary instructions at the earliest, ensuring consideration of the claim of the petitioners for regularization keeping in view the circular of the State Government dated 5.3.2008 and the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jaggo (supra). 9. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, these petitions are disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioners to make representation(s) before the concerned authorities within a period of 30 days and in turn, the authorities concerned are directed to decide the same within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), these petitions are disposed of. 6. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record, this Court finds substance in the contention that the claim of the petitioner was required to be considered in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaggo (supra), as specifically directed in the earlier order dated 01.05.2025 passed in W.P.(S) No.1275/2018. 7. The order dated 01.05.2025 required the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim for regularization keeping in view, inter alia, the judgment in Jaggo (supra). The said judgment is therefore a relevant consideration while examining the petitioner's claim. However, from 5 WPS No.4711 of 2026 the impugned order dated 11.02.2026, it does not appear that the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaggo (supra) have been considered and applied to the facts of the petitioner's case. The claim appears to have been rejected primarily by referring to the circular dated 05.03.2008 and the period of appointment mentioned therein. 8. The distinction is material. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaggo (supra) considered the manner in which the principles relating to regularization, particularly the distinction between illegal and irregular appointments and the effect of long and continuous service, are to be examined. Therefore, when this Court had specifically directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation in the light of the said judgment, the competent authority was required to examine the petitioner's individual case in that perspective and record appropriate reasons. 9. There is another aspect which also requires consideration. The respondents, in the return filed in the present proceedings, have relied upon the GAD Circular dated 01.06.2009 and have contended that the said circular places restrictions upon regularization of contractual employees. However, a perusal of the impugned order dated 11.02.2026 does not show that the said circular dated 01.06.2009 was considered or relied upon while rejecting the petitioner's representation. Even the said circular has not been brought to the notice of the Court in 6 WPS No.4711 of 2026 the earlier round of litigation by either of the parties and for the first time, the copy of the same has been placed by the respondents along with its return. Even while passing the order impugned also, the respondent authorities have not taken into consideration of the same. 10. It is well settled that the validity of an administrative order has to be examined on the reasons contained in the order itself. The respondents cannot, in the course of defending the impugned order, introduce a fresh ground or a fresh policy which was not considered by the authority while taking the decision. In the present case, therefore, the subsequent reliance placed upon the circular dated 01.06.2009 in the return cannot cure the omission to consider the relevant aspects while passing the impugned order. 11. Thus, this Court finds that the petitioner's representation has not been considered in the manner contemplated by the earlier order dated 01.05.2025. In particular, the effect of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Jaggo (supra) has not been adequately considered, and the circular dated 01.06.2009, now relied upon by the respondents, was admittedly not the basis of the impugned order and was not considered by the competent authority while rejecting the petitioner's claim. 12. Consequently, without expressing any opinion on the ultimate entitlement of the petitioner to regularization, the impugned order dated 11.02.2026 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the competent 7 WPS No.4711 of 2026 authority for fresh consideration of the petitioner's claim. While reconsidering the matter, the competent authority shall consider the petitioner's case independently and in its proper perspective after affording due opportunity of hearing, particularly keeping in view (i) the earlier order dated 01.05.2025 passed in W.P.(S) No.1275/2018; (ii) the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaggo (supra); and (iii) the applicability and effect, if any, of the circular dated 01.06.2009 and all other circulars/ orders issued by the State Government from time to time in respect of the subject matter. The competent authority shall thereafter pass a fresh, reasoned and speaking order, dealing with the aforesaid aspects and the specific claim of the petitioner, within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. As a result, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent, leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). 14. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits or otherwise of the petitioner's claim for regularization. The competent authority shall consider the matter independently and strictly in accordance with law. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE ashu