Dismissed¶37

David Prasad Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC14 Jun 2026WPS/8968/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regularization; Guest Faculty; Training Officer; COPA trade; Government ITI Bakawand; Bastar; Jagdalpur; circular dated 5.3.2008; daily rated employees; contingency paid employees; appointment prior to 1988 or between 1989 to 1997; no sanctioned vacant post; no advertisement; no interview; Madan Singh v. State of Haryana; 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 390; ad hoc employees; writ of mandamus; consequential benefits; WPS/5400/2021; Chhattisgarh High Court; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The joining letter dated 01.06.2008 (Annexure P/1) shows the petitioner was engaged as Guest Faculty; he was not appointed against any sanctioned and vacant post nor pursuant to any advertisement issued by the department. ¶28

David Prasad Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, engaged as Guest Faculty (Training Officer) since 01.06.2008 without appointment against a sanctioned vacant post and without advertisement or interview, is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing regularization in the post of trainer (COPA Trade) with consequential benefits. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

¶28

Ratio / Principle

The circular dated 5.3.2008 covers only daily rated employees/contingency paid employees appointed prior to year 1988 or between years 1989 to 1997, and the petitioner's case does not fall within it.

¶28

Key takeaways

Since the petitioner was not engaged/appointed against a sanctioned and vacant post, no advertisement was issued, he did not participate in any interview, and his claim is not covered within the Circular dated 05.03.2008, no case is made out for interference; the petition fails and is dismissed.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court (Bilaspur), WPS No. 8968 of 2022, decided 15.06.2026, Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J. A Guest Faculty (Training Officer, COPA trade) at Government ITI, Bakawand, District Bastar, appointed on 01.06.2008 and claiming 18 years of continuous service, sought a writ of mandamus for regularization and consequential benefits. The Court found from the joining letter dated 01.06.2008 (Annexure P/1) that he was engaged as Guest Faculty, not appointed against any sanctioned and vacant post and not pursuant to any advertisement or interview; further, the State circular dated 5.3.2008 covered only daily rated/contingency paid employees appointed prior to 1988 or between 1989 and 1997, so his claim fell outside it. Relying on Madan Singh and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 390 (where the Supreme Court struck down Notifications regularizing ad hoc employees engaged without advertisement or interview), the Court held no case for interference was made out and dismissed the petition.

REKHA SINGH

2026:CGHC:23795

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 8968 of 2022

¶7

1 - David Prasad Pandey S/o Shri Devendra Nath Pandey Aged About 41 Years Presently Posted As Training Officer, Trade- Computer Operator And Programming Assistant , Posted As Government Industrial Training Institute (I.T.I.), Bakawand, District Bastar (C.G.), Permanent Resident Of Tetarguda Para, Village And Post Mangnar, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Skill Development Technical Education And Employment, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Director Directorate Of Employment And Training, Indrawati Bhavan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - Joint Director Directorate Of Employment And Training, Divisional Office, Jagdalpur, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - Principal Government Industrial Training Institute, Bakawand, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

For Petitioner	: Mr. Kishore Narayan, Advocate
For State	: Mr. AmandeepSingh, P.L.

¶16

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board

¶17

15.06.2026

¶18

1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:-

¶19

“10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be

¶20

¶21

pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to take steps to regularize the petitioner in the post of trainer (COPA Trade) and further direct to grant consequential benefits, in the interest of justice.

¶22

10.2 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem and proper in the present circumstances of the case.”

¶23

2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed as Guest Faculty (Training Officer) under respondent department on 01.06.2008 where he has continuously worked for 18 years and posts are lying vacant but claim of petitioner for regularization has not been considered. He further submits that petitioner preferred WPS/5400/2021 which was disposed vide order dated 7.10.2021 whereby respondents were directed to consider the claim of petitioner. He contends that petitioner made a representation and same was rejected vide order dated 7.12.2021 on the ground that petitioner was working as Guest Faculty under respondents therefore he is not entitled for regularization. He further contends that according to circular issued by the State Government dated 5.3.2008, respondents are under obligation to consider the name of petitioner for regularization. He prays a direction to respondent authorities to regularize the petitioner.

¶24

3) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that petitioner was working as Guest Faculty and his claim for regularization is not covered with the circular dated 5.3.2008 and he cannot be

¶25

¶26

permitted to take refuge of the said circular.

¶27

4) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

¶28

5) Admittedly, joining letter dated 01.06.2008 (Annexure P/1) would reveal that petitioner was engaged as Guest Faculty. It appears that petitioner was not appointed against any sanctioned and vacant post e d pursuant to any advertisement issued by the department whereas according to circular dated 5.3.2008, claim of daily rated employees/ contingency paid employees who were appointed prior to year 1988 or between years 1989 to 1997 can be considered for regularization.

¶29

6) Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Madan Singh and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others¹ struck down the Notifications issued by the State of Haryana dated 07.07.2014 whereby a policy decision was taken to regularize the services of Group ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees. The Hon’ble Supreme Court struck down said Notification on the ground that the State of Haryana failed to justify reasons for regularization of services of ad hoc employees, who had not been engaged on the basis of advertisement or any interview. Relevant para 21 is reproduced herein below :

¶30

“21. On 07.07.2014, the General Administration Department of the State Government came up with a policy decision to regularise the services of

¶31

1 . 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 390

¶32

¶33

Group ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees. This policy, however, was slightly distinct from the earlier Notifications dated 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014. Significantly, what was provided for was that the services of ad hoc employees, who had or were to complete ten years of service at the future date of 31.12.2018 were to be regularised even if his/her original appointment was not made through the process of advertisement and interview. The criteria prescribed was (a) possessing the prescribed qualification for the post on the date of appointment/engagement, (b) the work discharged was to be on a sanctioned vacant post at the time of the initial engagement and also at the time of regularisation, (c) the reservation policy as applicable ought to be borne in mind and (d) no relaxation in the prescribed criteria was permissible.

¶34

In our view, the Notifications dated 07.07.2014 seek to regularise the engagement of such ad hoc employees, who were not initially engaged through the process of advertisement nor after facing any interview. Such stipulations are not found in the earlier Notifications dated 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014, which we have held to be valid. There is no justification placed on record by the State of Haryana as to why services of such ad hoc employees, who had not been engaged on the basis of any advertisement or interview were sought to be regularised, that too by taking into consideration a future cut-off date of 31.12.2018. The claim of being engaged sans an advertisement itself gives rise to doubts as regards the manner of engagement. Absence of any record whatsoever of the manner of engagement does not inspire any confidence in such process. That such ad hoc employee has not faced any interview is another relevant feature. Further, there does not appear to be any rational basis for fixing a future cut-off date, which is beyond four years from the date of the Notifications. This would indicate that even when it was possible to initiate a process of regular recruitment after issuance of the Notifications dated 07.07.2014, by virtue of the impugned Notifications, number of posts which could have been filled in through regular recruitment were not liable to be advertised. The intent was to accommodate such ad hoc employees, who came to be engaged, albeit temporarily, in the absence

¶35

¶36

of any public advertisement or interview. We see no justifiable reason to uphold the validity of the two Notifications dated 07.07.2014 since they intend to regularise the services of such ad hoc employees, who were engaged without any advertisement and without being interviewed. To that extent, the impugned judgment of the High Court holding the Notifications dated 07.07.2014 to be arbitrary and illegal does not deserve to be interfered with.”

¶37

7) Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was not engaged/appointed against sanctioned and vacant post, no advertisement was issued and he did not participate in any interview and his claim is not covered within the Circular dated 05.03.2008, in my opinion, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed .

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶40

Rekha

David Prasad Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

David Prasad Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Vs Ramdas Baghel

Durg Bus Service Pvt.ltd. Vs President, Chhattisgarh Parivahan Karmchari Union And Ors.

Umesh Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

K. Sarika Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tribhuvan Lal Yadav Vs Chhattisgarh State Power General Company Limited

Dhaneshwar Mandal Vs Secl