2025:CGHC:27592-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 397 of 2025

1 - Director, National Institute Of Technology (N.I.T.), Raipur, Through Director N.I.T. Raipur, G.E. Road, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)

2 - Registrar National Institute Of Technology (N.I.T.), Raipur, Through Director N.I.T. Raipur, G.E. Road, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)

... Appellant(s)

versus

1 - Miss Sandhya Mahadik D/o Late Shri Mahesh Rao Mahadik Aged About 40 Years Occupation - Sports Assistant, Sports Department, N.I.T., Raipur (C.G.), R/o Santoshi Nagar, Boria Road, Near To Shitla Mandir, Tikrapara Thana Area, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2 - Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Human Resource Develop-

ment, Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi ... Respondent(s)

For Appellants : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Ms. Deepali Pandey, Advocate.

For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

25/06/2025

1 Heard Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants, Ms.

Deepali Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner as well as Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General for the Union of India/ respondent No. 1.

2 IA No. 2/2025, has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 3 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, delay is condoned and with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

3 By this appeal under Section 2 sub-section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006, the appellant/respondents No. 2 and 3, seek to challenge the order dated 19.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 6326/2023 and other connected matters by which the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner (respondent No. 1 herein) wherein the writ petitioner had prayed for regularising her services on the post of Sports Assistant.

4 The facts, in brief, as per the appellants are that the Government Engineering College running by the State under the Technical Education Department was taken over by the National Institute of Technology Raipur (the appellants) and the sanctioned setup of Government Engineering College was mentioned in letter dated 10.11.2005 by Deputy Secretary Directorate of Technical Education (DTE). A total of 140 employees opted for the Appellant-NIT which includes 52 faculty members, 58 non-teaching staff and 30 contingency staff, as per letter dated 23.12.2006 received from Secretary Technical Education, Government of Chhattisgarh. Majority of employees opted for NIT had gone back to State Government service and only 37 non-teaching staff belonging to Group C and D remained with the NIT which was confirmed to the Ministry of Human Resource Department (for short, the HRD), Union of India by letter dated 06.03.2009. But none of the employees came from Government Engineering College. The total number of employees including faculty and non-faculty absorbed in the services of the Appellants were 88 and the same was communicated to the Secretary HRD, Union of India, vide letter dated 20.05.2009. The Statutes under NIT Act 2007 were made and notified on 23.04.2009.

5 Due to immediate requirement to meet the shortage of man power which was adversely affecting the overall working of the appellant-Institute, contract appointments were made by the appellants and walk-in- interview advertisement was issued. Since the set up of appellants after restructuring was not received, therefore, no posts were sanctioned at the time of issuance of advertisement and the no appointments were made against sanctioned posts. Thus none of the contract/daily wager appointments were made against the sanctioned post, nor made in accordance with the NIT recruitment rules, nor in accordance with recruitmen