Non-Entitlement to Relief Where Petitioners Are Not Similarly Situated to Precedential Case or Policy Guidelines

Nineteen appellants, serving in various teaching and administrative capacities (Head Masters, Teachers (L.B.), and Lecturers (L.B.)) in District Korea, Chhattisgarh, filed a writ appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 24.11.2025 in WPS No. 9038/2025

The Single Judge had dismissed their writ petition, which sought relief based on service-related claims

The present appeal was filed with a 38-day delay, for which a condonation application (I.A. No. 01/2026) was moved

1. Whether the delay of 38 days in filing the writ appeal should be condoned

2. Whether the appellants are entitled to relief under the Circular dated 10.03.2017 or are similarly situated to the petitioner in Smt. Sona Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

The Court applied the principle of stare decisis and judicial consistency by relying on its own recent precedent in Pushpalata Manikpuri and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others (WA No. 193/2026)

This precedent establishes that in an intra-court appeal, interference with a Single Judge's order is only warranted if "palpable infirmities" are noticed

Claimants seeking parity with prior cases must demonstrate they are "similarly situated" and clarify any reliance on administrative circulars (such as the Circular dated 10.03.2017) to avoid their claims being deemed "misconceived"

The Court first addressed the procedural delay and, finding sufficient cause, condoned the 38-day lapse

On the merits, the Division Bench noted that the legal issues raised by the appellants were identical to those already adjudicated in Pushpalata Manikpuri

The Court observed that the learned Single Judge had provided "cogent and justifiable reasons" for the dismissal and that the appellants failed to demonstrate they were similarly situated to the successful petitioner in the referenced Smt. Sona Sahu case

Since no palpable infirmity was found in the Single Judge's order, the Court determined that the claim under the 10.03.2017 Circular was legally unsustainable

It held that the appeal was "devoid of merit" as it was squarely covered by the judgment in Pushpalata Manikpuri. The order of the learned Single Judge was upheld, and no costs were imposed