1 2026:CGHC:19589 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5624 of 2022 1 - Kumari Bhagvati D/o Late Tula Ram Aged About 32 Years R/o Sahid Gundadhur, Ward No. 45, Infront Of Vidyoday School, Frejarpur, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Aver Secretary, Water Resource Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Engineer-In-Chief Shivnath Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Sector-19, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Senior Geohydrologist (Varisth Bhujal Vid) Sambhagiya Bhujal Sarvekshan Ekai No. 8, Water Resource Department, Canal Linking Road, Shanti Vihar, Infront Of House Of Ex-Minister, Ramshila Sahu, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Assistant Geohydrologist (Sahayak Bhujal Vid) Jila Bhujal Sarvekshan Ekai No. 33, Water Resource Department, Shihava Bhawan Parisar, Civil Line, Infront Of Bijli Office, Raipur, District-Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Shri Laxmi Techno Services (Man Power Recruitment Agency Business Auxiliary Services) Ekta Chowk, Shanti Vihar Colony, Daganiya, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) NIRMALA RAO 2 For Petitioner/s : Shri Khushboo Khotey, Advocate on behalf of Shri Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. For Respondents/ State : Shri R.C.S. Deo, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 28.4.2026 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:- “10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court, may kindly call for the entire record in relates to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court, may kindly be pleased to issued a writ / or writs / order / or orders / to reinstated the service of the petitioner on the post of Data Entry Operator, and granted her all back wages with interest, in the ends of justice. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court, may kindly be pleased to issued a writ / or writs / order / or orders / to direct the respondents authorities, to decide the representation (Annexure P/6), with in a period of 45 days, in the ends of justice. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court, may kindly be pleased to issued a writ /or writs / order / or orders / to regularized the service of the petitioner looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the ends of justice. 10.5 That, any other relief, this Hon'ble Court, deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2) The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner worked on the post of Data Entry Operator under respondent No.4 for a period from 15.2.2014 to 20.7.2019. An application was moved on 5.5.2018 before the Office of Chief Minister, State of Chhattisgarh, seeking 3 a direction to make payment of wages to the petitioner and other Data Entry Operator employees of the Water Resources Department maintaining muster rolls. The Superintending Engineer (Administration) referred the matter to the Chief Engineer/ respondent No.2 on 2.6.2018. The petitioner has placed on record subsequent correspondence exchanged between the authorities. A list of Date Entry Operators was prepared by the department on 25.2.2019 but the name of the petitioner was not included therein, and a decision was taken to engage Data Entry Operators through outsourcing. Consequently, the services of the petitioner and other Date Entry Operators were discontinued. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the services of the petitioner were discontinued without affording any opportunity of hearing, therefore, a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to reinstate her services forthwith. He would contend that a representation was made before the respondent authorities but till date, same has not been decided. It is also argued that as the petitioner has worked under the respondent authorities for a considerable period, therefore, a direction may be issued to regularize her services. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose. He would contend that the petitioner has not placed on record order of appointment. It is also argued that the 4 services of the petitioner were discontinued in the year 2019, whereas, the present writ petition was filed on 22.8.2022 without explaining the delay. It is further contended that since the services of the petitioner were discontinued way back in the year 2019, no direction to regularize her services can be issued. He would submit that a decision was taken to fill-up the post of Date Entry Operator through a placement agency and the said decision has already been complied with, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief sought in this petition. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6) The petitioner has not placed any order of appointment on record. It is not established that the petitioner was appointed against a sanctioned and vacant post available with the department. An experience certificate vide Annexure-P/1 has been placed on record to demonstrate that the petitioner worked for a period of five years under the respondents but on the basis of the said document alone, no order of regularization can be passed. It is necessary to plead and prove that such person was appointed against a sanctioned and vacant post according to recruitment rules. As pleaded, the services of the petitioner were discontinued in the year 2019, therefore, the claim of the petitioner for regularization appears to be misconceived. Further, a decision was taken to fill-up the posts of Data Entry Operators through a 5 placement agency and as informed by the counsel appearing for the State, the said decision has already been complied with, therefore, no direction can be issued for reinstatement of the petitioner. 7) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in opinion of this Court, no case is made up for indulgence. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Nimmi