Priyanka Chauhan vs Union Of Inidia Thr

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33307

1 WP No. 158 of 2016
THE IN HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
WRIT PETITION No. 158 of 2016
CNR No.: MPHC030004872016
PRIYANKA CHAUHAN
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri D.P. Singh and Shri Manoj Pratap Singh Yadav- Advocates for petitioner.
Shri Kabir Quraishi- Advocate for respondents.
Reserved on : 15.09.2026
Pronounced on : 30.10.2026
____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking following relief(s):-
“(i) That, the present petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be
allowed;
(ii) That, the impugned order dated 02.09.2013 passed by respondent
No. 3 may kindly be quashed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/31/2026
1:06:43 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33307

2 WP No. 158 of 2016
(iii) That, the respondents be directed to regularize the service of the
petitioner on the post of Administrative Officer from the due date and
direct the respondents to pay all the dues to the petitioner from the date
of discontinuance i.e. 17.02.2012.
(iv) That, direction be given to initiate proceeding of perjury against
the respondents on account of creating forged and fabricated
document.
(v) That, action as deemed fit may be initiated against the 5-member
committee for having reversed the observations of this Writ Court in
considering the accepted 'satisfactory' performance of the petitioner as
'average', with a malafide intention of scuttling the administration of
justice.
(vi) That, compensation be also granted to the petitioner because the
petitioner has been made to suffer due to the illegal act of the
respondents.
(vii) That, any other just, suitable and proper relief, which this Hon'ble
Court deems fit, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner. Costs be
also awarded in favour of the petitioner.”
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order
dated 02.09.2013, passed by respondent No. 3, whereby the petitioner’s claim for
regularization on the post of Administrative Officer has been rejected, is illegal,
arbitrary, discriminatory and actuated by mala fide intentions. The petitioner’s
case is that, despite a specific direction issued by this Hon’ble Court in W.P. No.
6939/2011 to consider her claim for regularization, the respondents have rejected
her claim by relying upon a forged and fabricated note sheet dated 20.01.2012,
which was never produced before the learned Single Bench or the Division Bench
in the earlier proceedings or before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
3. It is further submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner is
the daughter of late Shri P.S. Chauhan, who sacrificed his life in a militant attack
while serving at the Kashmir border. The petitioner worked as a Lab Technician
at Madhav Institute of Technology and Science, Gwalior, from 13.03.2003 to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/31/2026
1:06:43 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33307

3 WP No. 158 of 2016
17.07.2007, and thereafter served as Administrative Officer at Rustamji Institute
of Technology, BSF Academy, Tekanpur. Pursuant to the advertisement dated
12.05.2008 issued by respondent No.3 for regular appointment to the post of
Administrative Officer, the petitioner applied and participated in the selection
process. Although the post was sanctioned and advertised on a regular basis, she
was offered contractual appointment for two years vide order dated 01.09.2008.
The Selection Committee had recommended that, on satisfactory performance,
her case could be considered for regularization. Relying upon the assurance of the
authorities and the prevailing practice of regularizing contractual employees, the
petitioner resigned from her previous employment, where her services were about
to be confirmed, and joined the respondent Institute.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner was
initially posted at Bhubaneswar despite the availability of the post at Gwalior. She
was subsequently attached to IITTM, Gwalior, vide order dated 20.12.2010 and
assigned administrative duties on 23.12.2010. After satisfactory completion of her
contractual tenure, the Nodal Officer recommended extension of her services, and
extensions were granted vide orders dated 24.09.2010 and 03.10.2011. Her
confidential reports for the periods 27.09.2008 to 31.03.2009, 01.04.2009 to
31.03.2010, and 01.04.2010 to 31.12.2010 recorded satisfactory performance.
However, her services were not further extended, and her claim for regularization
was rejected without valid justification.
5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner
challenged the rejection of her claim by filing W.P. No.6939/2011, which was
allowed vide order dated 26.04.2013 with a direction to consider her case for
regularization from the due date. The Division Bench dismissed W.A.
No.194/2013 on 16.05.2013, and the Special Leave Petition filed by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/31/2026
1:06:43 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33307

4 WP No. 158 of 2016
respondents was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 15.07.2013.
Despite these orders, the respondents rejected the petitioner’s claim, compelling
her to initiate contempt proceedings. In Contempt Appeal No. 1/2015, the
petitioner was granted liberty to challenge the impugned order dated 02.09.2013
on its own merits.
6. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that, after obtaining
information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, vide letter dated
04.12.2013, the petitioner discovered that the five-member committee had
arbitrarily downgraded her first three satisfactory performance reports to
“average” and assessed her performance for the fourth period, from 01.01.2011 to
31.12.2011, as “poor”, solely on the basis of the alleged note sheet dated
20.01.2012. The said note sheet was not supported by any prescribed ACR
assessment sheet or folder, did not bear a file number or dispatch number, and
was never communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that it was
fabricated and antedated, as it was not produced before the learned Single Bench
or Division Bench during the earlier litigation, despite the issue of her
performance being under consideration. Moreover, the petitioner was never
issued any show-cause notice or warning regarding her alleged poor performance,
and her contractual services were subsequently extended.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that the constitution of the
five-member committee was illegal, arbitrary and mala fide , particularly when the
respondents had admitted in their submissions in Contempt Petition No.505/2013
that no prescribed criteria existed for regularization. The respondent Institute had
regularized the services of 59 employees, including employees who had served
for less than ten years, without applying any uniform criterion. The petitioner was
thus discriminated against, despite being similarly situated and possessing the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/31/2026
1:06:43 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33307

5 WP No. 158 of 2016
requisite qualifications and experience. The committee could not substitute its
own assessment by changing the recorded remarks of “satisfactory” to “average”,
contrary to the findings recorded in the petitioner’s confidential reports and the
observations made in the earlier judicial proceedings.
8. It is also submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the action of the
respondents is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Devdutt v. Union of India, reported in AIR 2008 SC 2513 , wherein it was held
that entries in the ACR, including adverse or below-benchmark entries, must be
communicated to the employee so that an opportunity to make a representation is
available. The petitioner contends that the impugned order violates the principles
of natural justice, is unsupported by reliable material, and has been passed to
defeat her legitimate claim for regularization and disregard the earlier judicial
directions. In the rejoinder, the petitioner has also alleged that the respondents’
conduct amounts to contempt of court and perjury, particularly on account of the
alleged creation and use of the note sheet dated 20.01.2012 and the alteration of
her performance assessment.
9. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the impugned
order dated 02.09.2013 be quashed and the respondents be directed to regularize
the petitioner on the post of Administrative Officer with all consequential
monetary and non-monetary benefits. The petitioner has also prayed for initiation
of contempt and perjury proceedings against Shri Kanti Prasad Gautam, Shri
Sandeep Kulshreshtha and Smt. Manjula Chaudhary for their alleged role in
creating and relying upon the disputed document and denying her legitimate
claim.
10. Per contra , it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that the
petitioner was not found suitable for regular appointment to the post of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/31/2026
1:06:43 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33307

6 WP No. 158 of 2016
Administrative Officer in the Indian Institute of Tourism and Travel Management
(IITTM), considering her administrative experience and performance in the
interview. However, she was recommended for appointment on a purely
contractual and temporary basis, with her case for regularization to be considered
on the basis of her performance. The recommendation did not confer any
automatic or unconditional right to regularization, and the petitioner was required
to demonstrate outstanding performance during her contractual engagement.
11. It is further submitted by learned counsel for respondents that, in
compliance with the orders dated 26.04.2013 passed in W.P. No. 6939/2011(S),
16.05.2013 passed in W.A. No. 194/2013 and 15.07.2013 passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 20265/2013, the petitioner’s case was considered by
a five-member senior committee on 24.08.2013. The Committee examined her
performance records and assessed her performance as Average for the periods
from 27.09.2008 to 31.03.2009, 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010 and 01.04.2010 to
31.12.2010, whereas her performance for the period from 01.01.2011 to
31.12.2011 was assessed as Poor. Accordingly, the Committee found her
unsuitable for regularization, and the competent authority issued the order dated
02.09.2013 accepting the Committee’s recommendation.
12. Learned counsel for respondents further submits that the assessment for the
period from 01.01.2011 to 31.12.2011 was based on the contemporaneous
performance report dated 20.01.2012, prepared by the Nodal Officer and
endorsed by the Director, IITTM. The report recorded her performance as
unsatisfactory and expressed concern that her continuation was likely to
adversely affect office discipline and the institutional interests of IITTM. It is,
therefore, contended that the Committee’s decision was supported by official
material and was not based on any arbitrary or unsupported assessment. The
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/31/2026
1:06:43 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33307

7 WP No. 158 of 2016
respondents have placed the relevant performance material before this Court
pursuant to the order dated 10.07.2026.
13. It is also submitted by learned counsel for respondents that the petitioner’s
reliance upon earlier satisfactory remarks and extensions of her contractual
appointment does not create an indefeasible right to regularization. Her suitability
was required to be assessed on the basis of her overall service record, and the
Committee duly considered the relevant material before arriving at its conclusion.
The respondents contend that the Committee applied its mind to the petitioner’s
case and that the mere disagreement of the petitioner with the assessment does
not establish arbitrariness or absence of material.
14. Learned counsel for respondents further submits that the petitioner was
engaged on a contractual basis as a stop-gap arrangement and not against the
regular post through a regular selection process. Under the applicable recruitment
structure, promotion was the first mode of recruitment, followed by transfer on
deputation/direct recruitment. The petitioner’s contractual engagement was made
when a departmental candidate was unavailable; subsequently, the eligible
departmental candidate was promoted to the post of Administrative Officer on
07.02.2014. Thus, neither the contractual appointment nor its extension conferred
any permanent right upon the petitioner to occupy the post.
15. It is further contended by learned counsel for respondents that the
petitioner’s reliance upon the regularization of 59 other employees is misplaced,
as their regularization was undertaken as a one-time administrative measure in
different circumstances, following a work-study exercise and creation of regular
posts, when they had been working on contract for more than ten years. The
petitioner’s case was required to be considered independently on the basis of her
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/31/2026
1:06:43 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33307

8 WP No. 158 of 2016
own service record, and the regularization of other employees does not confer any
enforceable right upon her.
16. Lastly, learned counsel for respondents submits that the scope of judicial
review does not ordinarily permit this Court to substitute its own assessment of
suitability for that of a duly constituted committee. Since the petitioner’s case was
considered in compliance with the directions of this Court, the Committee
examined the relevant performance records, and contemporaneous material
supported its conclusion, no ground for interference is made out. The
respondents, therefore, pray that the writ petition be dismissed, as the petitioner
has no automatic right to regularization and the impugned order dated 02.09.2013
was passed after consideration of her suitability by the competent authorities.
17. No other point is raised by learned counsel for the parties.
18. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on
record.
19. The principal question for consideration is whether the respondents have
lawfully considered the petitioner's claim for regularization and whether the order
dated 02.09.2013 suffers from arbitrariness or procedural unfairness.
20. At the outset, it is necessary to clarify that a contractual employee does not
automatically acquire a right to regularization merely because the employee has
worked for several years or because the contractual appointment has been
extended from time to time. In Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi , (2006)
4 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that public employment must
ordinarily be made in accordance with the constitutional requirements of equality
of opportunity under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/31/2026
1:06:43 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33307

9 WP No. 158 of 2016
21. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim regularization merely on the basis of
the Selection Committee's recommendation or the extension of her contractual
appointment. Her claim has to be examined in accordance with the applicable
recruitment rules, the nature of her appointment and the directions issued by this
Court in the earlier proceedings.
22. However, the fact that the petitioner has no automatic right to
regularization does not mean that the respondents are free to consider her claim
arbitrarily. Once the competent authority undertakes to consider a claim in
compliance with a judicial direction, such consideration must be fair, reasonable
and based upon relevant material. The decision must satisfy the requirements of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
23. In the present case, the petitioner's earlier performance reports are stated to
have recorded satisfactory performance. Her contractual appointment was also
extended from time to time. Subsequently, the five-member committee assessed
three earlier periods as “Average” and the fourth period as “Poor”. The
respondents have relied upon the note sheet dated 20.01.2012 to justify this
assessment.
24. The issue is not whether this Court should itself assess the petitioner's
administrative performance. Ordinarily, the assessment of an employee's
suitability is within the domain of the competent authority. However, where an
assessment is challenged on the ground that it is based on undisclosed adverse
material or has been made in an arbitrary manner, this Court can examine whether
the decision-making process was lawful.
25. In Dev Dutt v. Union of India , (2008) 8 SCC 725 , the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that an entry in the Annual Confidential Report of a public servant
must be communicated within a reasonable period, even if the entry is not
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/31/2026
1:06:43 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33307

10 WP No. 158 of 2016
formally adverse but is capable of adversely affecting the employee's career
prospects.
26. The above principle was approved by a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India , (2013) 9 SCC 566 . The
Court emphasized that communication of performance entries gives an employee
an opportunity to make a representation and seek correction of an assessment that
may adversely affect career progression.
27. Applying the above principles, if the entries in question are performance
assessments of the nature covered by the aforesaid judgments, and they were
relied upon to reject the petitioner's claim without being communicated to her, the
respondents' action would be inconsistent with the requirement of fairness. The
petitioner ought to have been given a reasonable opportunity to make a
representation against such adverse assessments before they were used to
determine her suitability, subject to the applicable service rules and governing
procedure.
28. The respondents contend that the note sheet dated 20.01.2012 was prepared
contemporaneously by the Nodal Officer and endorsed by the Director. The
petitioner, on the other hand, disputes its genuineness and alleges that it was
fabricated or antedated. The mere fact that a document was not produced in
earlier litigation does not, by itself, establish that it is fabricated. Similarly, an
allegation of fabrication cannot be accepted without supporting material.
29 Nevertheless, when a disputed document is relied upon to justify an
adverse decision, the authority must be able to establish that the document forms
part of the authentic official record and that the assessment was made by the
competent persons in accordance with the applicable procedure. The authority
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/31/2026
1:06:43 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33307

11 WP No. 158 of 2016
must also consider the earlier performance reports and explain any material
departure from them.
30. In the present case, the petitioner's challenge raises a substantial question
regarding the manner in which her performance was reassessed and the use of the
note sheet dated 20.01.2012. The respondents must demonstrate that the
committee considered the relevant records objectively and did not merely adopt
an adverse note without examining the petitioner's complete service record. The
fact that her contractual services had previously been extended is also relevant
material that ought to be considered, although it does not conclusively establish
satisfactory performance for every subsequent period.
31. The earlier judicial proceedings are also relevant. The respondents were
required to consider the petitioner's claim in accordance with the directions issued
in W.P. No.6939/2011, as affirmed in the writ appeal and followed by dismissal of
the Special Leave Petition. The precise effect of those directions must be
determined from the operative part of the earlier orders. If the direction was only
to consider the claim, it cannot be treated as a direction to grant regularization
automatically. At the same time, the respondents could not defeat the direction by
conducting a consideration that was arbitrary or contrary to law.
32. The petitioner has also relied upon the regularization of 59 other
employees. Article 14 requires the State and its instrumentalities to act fairly and
consistently. However, the regularization of other employees does not
automatically entitle the petitioner to the same benefit. The relevant question is
whether those employees were similarly situated in terms of their appointment,
qualifications, length of service, applicable recruitment rules and the
circumstances in which their services were regularized. The respondents'
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/31/2026
1:06:43 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33307

12 WP No. 158 of 2016
explanation that those employees were regularized under a separate
administrative exercise must be examined on the basis of the relevant records.
33. This Court is conscious that it cannot ordinarily substitute its own opinion
for that of a duly constituted selection or assessment committee. Judicial review
is concerned with the legality and fairness of the decision-making process, not
with conducting a fresh assessment of the employee's suitability. Nevertheless,
where the decision is based upon material that was not fairly disclosed, where
relevant records have not been properly considered, or where the decision-making
process is arbitrary, interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
justified.
34. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the petitioner's challenge to the process adopted by the respondents requires
acceptance to the extent that the impugned decision cannot be sustained unless
the adverse assessments relied upon by the committee are shown to have been
made and used in accordance with law. The respondents must reconsider the
matter after examining the authenticity and relevance of the note sheet dated
20.01.2012, the petitioner's earlier performance reports and the applicable
recruitment rules.
35. At the same time, this Court is not inclined to issue a direct order of
regularization at this stage. In view of the law laid down in Umadevi (supra) ,
regularization can be directed only where the petitioner establishes an entitlement
under the applicable legal framework. A direction for fair consideration cannot be
converted into an automatic right to permanent appointment.
36. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part. The impugned order dated
02.09.2013 is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the competent authority for
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/31/2026
1:06:43 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33307

13 WP No. 158 of 2016
fresh consideration of the petitioner's claim for regularization. While
reconsidering the matter, the competent authority shall:
(i) examine the petitioner's complete service and performance
record, including the earlier performance reports and the extensions of
her contractual appointment;
(ii) verify the authenticity and relevance of the note sheet dated
20.01.2012 and consider whether it was prepared and relied upon in
accordance with the applicable procedure;
(iii) communicate to the petitioner the adverse performance entries
proposed to be relied upon and afford her a reasonable opportunity to
submit a representation, wherever required by law;
(iv) consider the petitioner's representation by passing a reasoned
and speaking order, dealing with the relevant grounds raised by her;
(v) examine the applicable recruitment rules and the petitioner's
eligibility for regularization, without treating the regularization of
other employees as automatically decisive; and
(vi) ensure that the decision is consistent with the directions issued
in the earlier judicial proceedings.
37. The above exercise shall be completed, as far as practicable, within three
months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
38. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any final opinion on the
petitioner's entitlement to regularization. The competent authority shall decide the
matter independently and in accordance with law. If the petitioner is found
entitled to regularization under the applicable rules and binding judicial
directions, the consequential benefits shall be determined in accordance with law.
39. So far as the allegations of fabrication, perjury and contempt are
concerned, no finding of guilt can be recorded merely on the basis of the
allegations made in the petition. The prayer for initiation of separate proceedings
is therefore not granted in the present writ petition. This shall not prevent the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/31/2026
1:06:43 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33307

14 WP No. 158 of 2016
petitioner from pursuing any remedy available to her in accordance with law, if
supported by appropriate material.
40. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of . There
shall be no order as to costs.
(Anand Singh Bahrawat)
Judge
pd
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/31/2026
1:06:43 PM