Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/1219/2025 on 28 October, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:9466
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
WPSS 1219/2025
WPSS 1139/2025
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Mahavir Kohli and Mr. Pankaj
Miglani, Counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. Narayan Datt, Standing
Counsel, for the State.
Mr. B.D. Pande, Advocate, for the
UKSSSC.
Mr. Siddhartha Bankoti, Advocate,
for the DLSA.
(2) Since common questions of fact
and law are involved in both the writ
petitions, therefore, these are being heard
and decided together by this common
judgment. However, for brevity, facts of
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1219 of 2025 alone
are being considered and discussed here.
Reliefs sought in Writ Petition (S/S) No.
1219 of 2025 are extracted below:
"1. To summon the complete record
pertaining to the case.
2. To issue a writ order or direction in
the nature of Mandamus not to remove the
petitioner from the post of personal assistant in
the District Legal Service Authority, Nainital as the
petitioner has already completed about 5 years 11
month continuous satisfactory service and further
directing respondents to adhere to the directions
in consonance of the judgment passed by this
Hon'ble Court in WP(PIL) 116 of 2018 Kundan
Singh Vs. State and others and Narender Kumar
Tiwari and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and others.
2018 (8) SCC 238
3. To issue a writ order or direction in
the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent
the petitioner's post should be regularized in
compliance with the Hon'ble Court's order dated
12.11.2018 in a Writ Petition no 116 of 2018 PIL
and they should not be removed from service."
2025:UHC:9466
(3) Petitioners were engaged through
outsourcing agency, namely, UPNL in
District Legal Services Authority as
Stenographer. Vacancy against which
petitioners were so engaged was notified to
Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection
Commission and an advertisement was
issued by the Commission on 17.9.2024
inviting applications for appointment on
different Group 'C' posts including
Stenographer. Selection process is now
complete and the names of selected
candidates have been recommended to the
appointing authority.
(4) Learned State Counsel submits
that petitioners were engaged through a
contractor, namely, UPNL and there is no
direct relationship of employer and
employee between the State and the
petitioners. He further submits that a
casual or daily paid employee cannot claim
any right better than that of a candidate
who is regularly selected for appointment
against a post as per the rules. He further
submits that petitioners' engagement was
stopgap arrangement to carry on day-to-
day functioning in District Legal Services
Authority and, now, since regularly selected
candidates are available, therefore,
petitioners cannot claim any right better
than that of regularly selected candidates.
He relies on a judgment rendered by this
Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2130 of
2023 and other connected petitions. Para
19, 20 and 21 of the said judgment are
extracted below:
"19. As per the existing law,
outsourced employees do not have a vested
right of regularization. Moreover, no one can
claim regularization after serving for only 3-4
years on contract. Petitioners could have
2025:UHC:9466
successfully challenged the advertisement if it
was interfering with a vested or accrued right
of theirs.
20. Learned State Counsel is right in
submitting that upon completion of selection
process and after issuance of appointment
letter to the duly selected candidates, the
reliefs as claimed by petitioners do not survive.
21. The interim orders passed in
these writ petitions cannot be extended any
further, as petitioners do not have any right
better than that of regularly selected
candidates. Moreover, petitioners are not
challenging the order, whereby their
engagement was discontinued, on the other
hand, they have challenged the advertisement
issued by the selecting body, whereby
applications were invited from eligible
candidates for regular appointment against the
posts in question."
(5) Upon perusal of the judgment
rendered in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2130 of
2023, it is revealed that this Court was
dealing with the issue of regularisation of
employees outsourced through UPNL. Thus
this Court is of the considered opinion that
the issue involved in these writ petitions
have been dealt with and decided by this
Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2130 of
2023.
(6) Accordingly, these writ petitions
are also decided in terms of the judgment
dated 12.9.2025 rendered in Writ Petition
(S/S) No. 2130 of 2023.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
28.10.2025
Pr
PRABODH KUMAR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462503,
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C67F3C91957
BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR
Date: 2025.10.29 10:02:49 +05'30'
2025:UHC:9466
