Order on Board

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or orders or directions to the respondents to regularize the petitioner in service against the sanctioned vacant post of Training Officer in ITI Mana or in any other ITI.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent authorities to pay the salary in the pay scale of Rs. 9,300- Rs. 34,500 including all allowances as is paid to regular Training Officers with all other consequential benefits including arrears.

10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to restrain the respondents from taking any coercive action against the petitioner including break in service and continue him and continue him in service till the present petition is finally decided by this Hon'ble Court.

10.4 To issue any other appropriate orders or directions to the respondents in the interest of justice in favor of the petitioner.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as a Training Officer on a contractual basis in the Industrial Training Institutes (ITI) on 16.10.2009 and the contract period has been extended from time to time. She would submit that the experience certificates were issued by the authorities in his favour. She would submit that the contract was renewed and the petitioner was posted to ITI, Mana, Raipur vide order dated 5.4.2015. She would submit that although the petitioner has been working as a Training Officer at ITI Mana since 2015 but till date, his case for regularization has not been considered by the respondent authorities. In support of this contention, she has placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jivanlal vs. Pravin Krishna, Principal Secretary and Others, reported in (2016) 15 SCC 747, Jaggo vs. Union of India and Others, reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 and Narendra Kumar Tiwari and Others vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, reported in AIR 2018 SC 3589.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the petitioner has no vested right to claim the regularization. He would further submit that since the petitioner is a contractual employee appointed for a fixed period, he holds no right to seek regularization. He would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed.

4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo (supra) has considered the case of the employees for regularization and has passed the following order, which reads as under:-

“20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements. However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly “irregular,” and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization. In a recent judgement of this Court in Vinod Kumar and Ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors., it was held that held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed "temporary" but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee. The relevant paras of this judgement have been reproduced below: “6. The application of the ju