Chhattisgarh High Court Mandates Permanent Status for Contractual Employees with Regular Appointments
In a landmark judgment, the Chhattisgarh High Court has emphatically ruled that employees appointed against duly sanctioned vacancies through a regular selection process, and who have provided long and uninterrupted service, cannot be denied regular status merely because their appointment orders describe them as "contractual." The court underscored that when such appointments are made following due procedure and against existing sanctioned posts, substantive rights cannot be subordinated to mere form or nomenclature.
Court Quashes Rejection of Regularization Claims
Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, on February 10, quashed an earlier order that had rejected the regularization claims of several Data Entry Operators who have served for over a decade. The petitioners were appointed as Data Entry Operators in the Surguja district between 2012 and 2013. Despite the posts being sanctioned on a regular basis and a state-wide ban on regular recruitment being lifted in 2007, the initial advertisement had listed the positions as contractual.
The petitioners argued that their selection followed a formal process, including a two-year probation period—a condition typically reserved for regular appointments. They approached the court after the School Education Department rejected their representations in October 2022, maintaining that their status would remain contractual.
Key Factors Distinguishing Appointments from "Backdoor Entries"
The court highlighted several critical factors that distinguished these appointments from "backdoor entries." The appointments were made via public advertisement and a transparent selection procedure, and the petitioners occupied vacancies that were officially sanctioned by the department. Furthermore, the employees rendered more than 10 years of uninterrupted service without any procedural impropriety, the court noted.
Justice Prasad emphasized that the state cannot hide behind formal nomenclature to perpetuate ad-hocism. The court relied heavily on a recent Supreme Court precedent, Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand (2026), which held that the state, as a "model employer," must treat its staff fairly regardless of whether their engagement is labelled contractual or regular.
Ruling Against Mechanical and Arbitrary Rejections
The High Court found the department's rejection of the petitioners' claims to be mechanical and arbitrary. It ruled that when an appointment is substantive in nature, it cannot be subordinated to mere terminology. A cryptic or mechanical rejection of regularization, without due consideration of these material aspects, is legally unsustainable, the court stated.
This judgment reinforces the principle that the essence of an appointment—based on sanctioned posts and proper procedures—must prevail over superficial labels, ensuring justice for long-serving employees in contractual roles.
