Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Khemraj Sahu, Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

Home
Chhattisgarh HC
2025
Khemraj Sahu, Vs State of ChhattisgarhKhemraj Sahu, v. State of Chhattisgarh

Dismissed¶32

Khemraj Sahu, v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC21 Mar 2025WPS/642/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Khemraj Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, WPS No. 642 of 2021, neutral citation 2025:CGHC:13751, NAFR, decided 22.03.2025 by Narendra Kumar Vyas, J. Keywords: contractual employment; one year vs three years; advertisement dated 01.12.2020; Rule 11(1) and Rule 4(1)/(4)/(5), Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contractual Appointments) Rules, 2012; amendment declared 25.03.2019; Commissioner Mahatma Gandhi Rastriya Gramin Rojgar Guarantee; writ petition filed 05.01.2021; lapse of time / delay; writ of mandamus refused; Article 226 Constitution of India; writ petition dismissed; no relief granted; no monetary amount involved; no precedent relied upon.

What did the court decide?

The pleadings do not clarify whether the petitioner was actually granted the contractual appointment, and the writ petition filed on 05.01.2021 has remained pending for more than four years.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether Clause 1 of the advertisement dated 01.12.2020 confining contractual employment to one year only is contrary to the amended Rules of 2012 (which provide for a first contractual appointment of three years) and is therefore liable to be quashed. +1 more

Court's answer

Even if the three-year period of contractual appointment under the amended Rules of 2012 were counted, that period has already come to an end, given the lapse of more than four years.

Ratio / Principle

The pleadings do not clarify whether the petitioner was actually granted the contractual appointment, and the writ petition filed on 05.01.2021 has remained pending for more than four years.

Key takeaways

In view of the lapse of time, no writ of mandamus can be issued; consequently the writ petition is dismissed without adjudicating the validity of the one-year condition in the advertisement.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.), WPS No. 642 of 2021, order dated 22.03.2025 (NAFR): The petitioner, appointed/recruited pursuant to an advertisement dated 01.12.2020, challenged Clause 1 thereof limiting contractual employment to one year, contending it contravened Rule 11(1) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contractual Appointments) Rules, 2012 following the amendment declared on 25.03.2019 (first contractual appointment for three years, renewable). Held: the writ petition filed on 05.01.2021 had remained pending for more than four years; the pleadings did not show that the petitioner was in fact granted contractual appointment; and even counting a three-year contractual period under the Rules of 2012, it had already run out. No writ of mandamus could therefore issue and the writ petition was dismissed. The legality of the one-year condition was not otherwise decided.

A

1

2025:CGHC:13751

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPS No. 642 of 2021

Khemraj Sahu, S/o Shri Gopichand Sahu, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Rapagulla, Police Station / Tehsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

... Petitioner(s)

versus

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Capital Complex Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Sarangarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.N. Nande, Advocate

For State : Ms. Saumya Sharma, Panel Laywer

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

Order on Board

22.03.2025

The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Clause 1 of the advertisement according to which contractual employment should be only for one year on the count that respondents have already amended in the

Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH YADAV YADAV Date: 2025.04.15 15:45:20 +0530

2

set up declared on 25.03.2019 when the Commissioner Mahatma Gandhi Rastriya Gramin Rojgar Gurantee has already amended the rules in view of the amendment made in the Rules 11(1) of the Chhattisgarh Civil services (Contractual Appointments) Rules, 2012 (in short “Rules of 2012”) by which the following Rules have been amended:

“1. In rule 11, for sub - rule (1), the following shall be substituted namely:-

(1) On the contractual appointment posts mentioned under rule 4(1), first contractual appointment shall be made for a period of three years, however, the state Government may take decision of renewal of the contractual appointment by extending the period of contractual appointment up to maximum three years at a time depending on the necessity and after assessing suitability of person’s appointment on contractual basis.

2 In rule 11, for sub – rule (3), the following shall be substituted namely:-

(3)(a) On post mentioned in rule 4(4), in the matter of contract appointment of retired Government servant contract appointment being given as a special case on the basis of their special experience exemplary service record and evaluation of performance, the period of contract appointment may be for period of 5 years which may be extended twice more fro period maximum upto five year be the State Government considering the department of General Administration and Finance Department.

(b) On posts mentioned in rule 4(5) contractual appointment can be given till the tenure of the hon’ble Chief Minister/Ministers.”

Thus, he would submit that the contractual period of appointment should be issued for three years, where in the advertisement they have mentioned only for one year. Thus, it is against the Rules of 2012, thus, he would pray for quashing of the said condition.

The advertisement was issued on 01.12.2020 and more than four years have already been lapsed and the petitioner is unable to

3

clarify from the pleadings made in the writ petition whether he has granted contractual appointment or not and on the count that the writ petition was filed on 05.01.2021 and more than four years have already been lapsed and even if three years period is counted for contractual appointment the same has also come to an end in view of the Rules of 2012.

Considering this aspect of the matter, no writ of mandamus can be issued.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

Manish

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether Clause 1 of the advertisement dated 01.12.2020 confining contractual employment to one year only is contrary to the amended Rules of 2012 (which provide for a first contractual appointment of three years) and is therefore liable to be quashed.¶27
The court held
Even if the three-year period of contractual appointment under the amended Rules of 2012 were counted, that period has already come to an end, given the lapse of more than four years.ratio¶30
2.
Whether any writ of mandamus can issue when more than four years have elapsed since the advertisement (01.12.2020) and since the filing of the writ petition (05.01.2021), such that even a three-year contractual period would stand exhausted.¶31
The court held
The pleadings do not clarify whether the petitioner was actually granted the contractual appointment, and the writ petition filed on 05.01.2021 has remained pending for more than four years.ratio¶30

Statutes considered

5 provisions across 2 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226¶18
Chhattisgarh Civil services (Contractual Appointments) Rules, 2012Rule 11(1)¶21 Rule 4(1)¶23 Rule 4(4)¶25 Rule 4(5)¶26

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Clause 1 of an advertisement (issued 01.12.2020) stipulating that contractual employment would be for one year only, which the petitioner challenged and prayed to have quashed.¶18
01.12.2020
Prior proceeding
Advertisement containing the challenged Clause 1 was issued on 01.12.2020.¶28
Prior proceeding
Amendment substituting sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (3) of Rule 11 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contractual Appointments) Rules, 2012 was declared/set up on 25.03.2019 by the Commissioner, Mahatma Gandhi Rastriya Gramin Rojgar Guarantee, providing for a first contractual appointment of three years (renewable up to three years at a time) and extended tenures for specified posts.¶21
Prior proceeding
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed on 05.01.2021.¶30

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Khemraj Sahu, S/o Shri Gopichand Sahu¶6
K.N. Nande
respondent
State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development¶9
Saumya Sharma
respondent
Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Raigarh¶10
respondent
Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Sarangarh¶11

Coram

AI extract

Narendra Kumar Vyasauthor¶15

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Chhattisgarh HC
Decided on: 21 Mar 2025 · March
Registered: 23 Jan 2021
Case no.: WPS/642/2021
CNR: CGHC010018952021
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: WPS

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Narendra Kumar Vyas

Kalkuri Chanke Shalu Vs State of Chhattisgarh
20 Mar 2025
Dhanlaxmi Traders Main Road Jorapali Vs Nandkishore Chandra
20 Mar 2025
Abhilasha Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh
20 Mar 2025
Hemraj Harbansh Vs State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary
21 Mar 2025
R. K. Pansari Vs State of Chhattisgarh
21 Mar 2025
Dwaraka Prasad Ragra, Vs State of Chhattisgarh
21 Mar 2025

Cite this judgement

Khemraj Sahu, v. State of Chhattisgarh, WPS/642/2021 (CG), decided on 21 March 2025.

The High Court of Chhattisgarh publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes5

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226
Chhattisgarh Civil services (Contractual Appointments) Rules, 2012Rule 11(1) · Rule 4(1) · Rule 4(4) · Rule 4(5)

View all statutes

Procedural history4

Clause 1 of an advertisement (issued 01.12.2020) stipulating that contractual employment would be for one year only, which the petitioner challenged and prayed to have quashed.01.12.2020
Advertisement containing the challenged Clause 1 was issued on 01.12.2020.
Amendment substituting sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (3) of Rule 11 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contractual Appointments) Rules, 2012 was declared/set up on 25.03.2019 by the Commissioner, Mahatma Gandhi Rastriya Gramin Rojgar Guarantee, providing for a first contractual appointment of three years (renewable up to three years at a time) and extended tenures for specified posts.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Narendra Kumar Vyas

Parties & counsel