[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
8Th February vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 18 February, 2026
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2026:UHC:1378
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
Writ Petition Service Single No. 2159 of 2024
18TH February, 2026
Deepak Kumar and others --Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others --Respondents
Writ Petition Service Single No. 206 of 2026
Deepak Kumar and others --Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others --Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Sanpreet Singh Ajmani & Mr. Bhavya Pratap Singh Rautela,
Advocates for the petitioners.
Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, Standing Counsel for the State of
Uttarakhand/ respondent no. 1.
Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, Advocate for respondent no. 2.
Mr. Gaurav Nagpal, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Ramji
Srivastava, Advocate for respondent no. 3.
Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for respondent no. 4/ UPNL.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
Since common questions of fact and law are
involved in these petitions, therefore, these petitions
are clubbed together and decided by this common
judgment. However, for the sake of brevity and
convenience, facts of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2159 of
2024 alone are being considered and discussed.
2026:UHC:1378
2. Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2159 of 2024 is filed
by eleven persons, who were engaged on contract
through outsourcing agency, to perform duties of
Pharmacist in dispensaries run by Employees State
Insurance Scheme (hereinafter referred to as 'ESIS'),
within State of Uttarakhand.
3. The reliefs sought in this writ petition are as
follows:-
"A. To issue writ, order or direction thereby
directing the Respondents to regularize the services
of the Petitioners on the posts they are serving with
all consequential service benefits, forthwith.
B. To issue appropriate writ, order or direction
in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the
impugned advertisement dated 16.10.2024 issued by
the respondent-state so far it relates to the posts on
which the present petitioners are still serving as
Pharmacist (Allopathy)."
4. According to the petitioners, they are serving
on contract as Pharmacist in dispensaries run by ESIS
for more than a decade and they are educationally
qualified for regular appointment as Pharmacist, thus,
they are entitled for regularisation against available
vacancies, as such, the employer is not justified in
initiating process for regular selection against vacancies
available on the post of Pharmacist.
5. It is not in dispute that the employer (ESIS)
notified vacancies on the post of Pharmacist to the
State Government and based on the requisition sent by
the State Government, Uttarakhand Medical Service
Selection Board advertised the vacancies in
newspapers, on 16.10.2024. Petitioners have
challenged the advertisement dated 16.10.2024, issued
2026:UHC:1378
by respondent no. 3 in this writ petition and they have
also sought a direction to the employer to regularise
their services on the post of Pharmacist.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners relied
upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand and
others, reported as 2026 INSC 99, for contending that
after rendering long continuous service, right of
regularisation has accrued in favour of the petitioners,
as such, the selection process initiated by the
respondents for supplying available vacancies on the
post of Pharmacist is interferable. Reliance was also
placed by learned counsel for the petitioners on the
judgments rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Pawan Kumar and others v. Union of India and
others, reported as 2026 INSC 156 and U.P. Junior
High School Council Instructor Welfare Association v.
State of Uttar Pradesh and others in SLP(C) No. 9459
of 2023.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
Employees State Insurance Scheme relied upon the
judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Municipal Council, represented by its
Commissioner, Nandyal Municipality, Kurnool District,
A.P. v. K. Jayaram and others etc. etc. for contending
that persons engaged on contract through outsourcing
agency cannot claim same benefits, which are claimed
by other directly appointed casual/temporary
employees, or else, the basic concept of hiring persons
through separate modes and in different capacity would
2026:UHC:1378
lose its purpose and sanctity and everybody would be
getting exactly the same benefit irrespective of the
mode of his/her engagement. Relevant extract of
paragraph no. 9 of the aforesaid judgment is
reproduced below:-
"We have absolutely no doubt in our mind that such
issue raised by learned senior counsel is of
relevance, but the Court feels that the mode of
contractual employment, that too, by a contractor
and not directly by the employer will have to be
seen in a different light in the eyes of law. If all
such distinctions between a regular employee and
such contractual employees is not made, then the
basic concept of hiring through various modes and
in different capacity would lose its purpose and
sanctity and ultimately everybody would be getting
exactly the same benefit. This cannot be permitted
in law for the reason that employment under a
State entity is a public asset and every citizen of the
country has a right to apply for it. In a regular
employment, directly made by the said State entity,
there are safeguards to ensure that the system of
employment/engagement is transparent and fulfills
a minimum criteria and is open to all eligible
persons and a mode/procedure is adopted for
ultimately choosing the right person. When
employees/workmen are taken through a
contractor, it is the absolute discretion of the
contractor as to whom and through which mode he
would choose such persons to be sent to the
principal. This is where the difference lies, which is
a very valid distinction in law. The reason why there
are safeguards in regular appointment is that there
should not be any favoritism or other extraneous
consideration where persons, only on merit, are
recruited through a fully transparent procedure
known in law. If the persons who are employed
through a contractor, and have come to work, are
given equal benefit and status as a regular
employee, it would amount to giving premium and
sanction to a process which is totally arbitrary as
there is no mode prescribed in any contract as to
how the contractor would employ or choose the
persons who are to be sent, except for the basic
qualification, i.e., knowledge in the field for which
they are required. The judgment/ order relied upon
by learned counsel for the appellant aptly covers
the field in the present case. The judgment cited by
learned senior counsel for the respondents is
basically different on facts for the reason that there
2026:UHC:1378
the contractual employment was directly by the
principal and in that background contractual
workers have been regularized.
(emphasis supplied.
8. Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned counsel
appearing for respondent no. 2 submits that there is no
'master-servant' relationship between ESIS and
petitioners; services of the petitioners were provided by
the outsourcing agency, which was given contract for
supply of manpower. He further submits that ESIS pays
a fixed amount each month to the outsourcing agency,
in lieu of the services provided by its employees in
ESIS. He submits that the prayer made by petitioners
for regularisation would be maintainable, only if
petitioners were directly engaged by ESIS. He further
submits that since here, there is a middleman involved,
who is responsible for supplying manpower and ESIS
had no control over the process of engagement of
petitioners, therefore, the relief as claimed by the
petitioners is legally unfounded.
9. Mr. Bhatia also cited a judgment rendered by
learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition (S/S)
No. 2130 of 2023 and other connected petitions. In
that case also, persons engaged through outsourcing
agency for performing clerical duties, challenged the
advertisement, whereby applications were invited for
regular appointment against available vacancies in
Permanent Lok Adalat, Dehradun. The writ petition filed
by such outsourced employees was dismissed by
holding that a person, who is selected after facing
rigorous process of selection, has a much better claim
2026:UHC:1378
for appointment, compared to persons engaged by way
of stopgap arrangement, till regular selection. Relevant
extract of the said judgment is reproduced below:-
"16. In the case of Dharam Singh (supra), request
was made by U.P. Higher Education Services
Commission for creation of post of peon and driver
to accommodate the appellants who are serving as
daily wager we.f. 1989 & 1992, however, the
request for creation of posts was repeatedly turned
down, consequently claim of the appellants for
regularization could not be considered. In that
backdrop, Hon'ble Supreme Court made
observations, as are contained in paragraph nos. 17
& 18 of the judgment. Here the facts are entirely
different. Petitioners were engaged through
outsourcing only in the year 2021 and soon after
their engagement, the vacancies were notified to
general public by an advertisement. The selection
process is over and the candidates recommended
by the Commission have approached the Permanent
Lok Adalat for joining. In such circumstances,
petitioners, who were engaged through outsourcing
agency, cannot have any right better than the right
available to candidates recommended by the
Commission.
17. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relies
upon a judgment rendered by Apex Court in the
case of Jaggo v. Union of India and others reported
in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826.
18. The said judgment also is distinguishable on
facts. The question, which falls for consideration in
the present batch of writ petitions, is whether the
contract employees, engaged through outsourcing,
can question the selection held for regular
appointment and whether the selection process can
be set aside on the asking of such casual/contract
employees, who were asked to discharge duties of
the post only till the posts are filled by regular
selection.
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 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
2026:UHC:1378
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.
22. Thus, the relief as claimed by the petitioners
cannot be granted. Writ petitions are misconceived
and ill advised, therefore, they are liable to be
dismissed.
23. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed.
Interim orders passed in these writ petitions are
vacated."
10. Mr. Bhatia, learned counsel appearing for
ESIS pointed out that when petitioners were not
successful in getting interim injunction against the
ongoing selection in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2159 of
2024, then they filed Writ Petition (S/S) No. 206 of
2026, challenging the notification dated 06.01.2026,
issued by the Selecting Body. The relief sought in Writ
Petition (S/S) No. 206 of 2026 is extracted below:-
"i. Quash the impugned notification no. 02/2026,
dated 06.01.2026, pursuant to the advertisement
dated 16.10.2024, in the interest of justice.
11. By the notification dated 06.01.2026,
Uttarakhand Medical Service Selection Board asked the
persons, who had applied for the post of Pharmacist in
ESIS, to exercise option regarding examination centre
for appearing in the written examination.
12. Mr. Bhatia, learned counsel appearing for
ESIS submits that since none of the petitioners applied
2026:UHC:1378
in response to the advertisement dated 16.10.2024,
therefore, the option given to candidates, who applied
pursuant to said advertisement, made no difference to
the petitioners and they had no cause of action to
challenge the notification dated 06.01.2026. He further
submits that petitioners had challenged the
advertisement dated 16.10.2024, in Writ Petition (S/S)
No. 2159 of 2024, therefore, they had no occasion to
challenge the subsequent notification, issued by
Selecting Body, on 06.01.2026. He submits that Writ
Petition (S/S) No. 206 of 2026 was filed by the
petitioners with ulterior motive of stalling the ongoing
selection as they were not successful in getting interim
order in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2159 of 2024, in which
the advertisement, whereby vacancies were notified,
was challenged.
13. Mr. Bhatia, learned counsel appearing for
ESIS submitted that in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 206 of
2026, petitioners did not disclose the fact that their writ
petition challenging advertisement dated 16.10.2024 is
pending consideration before this Court, although they
were required to make disclosure about writ petitions
filed earlier and also the relief claimed therein.
Mr. Sanpreet Singh Ajmani, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners, in reply, referred to paragraph no. 1
of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 206 of 2026. In paragraph
no. 1 of the Writ Petition (S/S) No. 206 of 2026, it is
stated that vide notification dated 06.01.2026, process
of appointment in respect of 62 posts of Pharmacist
(Allopathy) by direct recruitment has been initiated and
further that "no other writ petition has been filed by the
2026:UHC:1378
present petitioners for the same or similar cause of
action. However, a writ petition seeking regularization
is pending adjudication before this Court".
14. This Court finds substance in the submission
made by learned counsel appearing for ESIS.
Petitioners in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 206 of 2026,
deliberately made misleading statement and even
though they had challenged the advertisement dated
16.10.2024, whereby applications were invited for
appointment as Pharmacist in the earlier writ petition,
but they suppressed this material information while
making mandatory disclosure in paragraph no. 1 of the
subsequent writ petition.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred
to paragraph no. 9 of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 206 of
2026, where it is stated that "the State Government is
well aware about the pendency of the writ petition
preferred by the present petitioners", however, the
relief sought by them in their earlier writ petition, is not
indicated anywhere in the writ petition.
16. Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned counsel
appearing for ESIS submits that filing second writ
petition challenging the selection process, when earlier
writ petition challenging the advertisement dated
16.10.2024 filed by petitioners was pending
consideration, amounts to abuse of process of law. He
submits that second writ petition was filed, as
petitioners were unsuccessful in getting interim order
against the selection in their earlier writ petition. He
further submits that propriety demands that full
2026:UHC:1378
description of pending writ petition, including relief
sought, has to be given by a person/s in the
subsequent writ petition, however, petitioners in Writ
Petition (S/S) No. 206 of 2026 neither mentioned the
number of the earlier writ petition nor any disclosure
was made regarding relief sought in the earlier writ
petition. He further submitted that the notification
dated 06.01.2026 was issued by the selecting body
asking the candidates to indicate their choice regarding
examination centres; since petitioners had already
challenged the advertisement, issued on 16.10.2024
and they had not applied in response to that
advertisement, therefore, they were not affected by the
notification dated 06.01.2026, as such, they did not
have any cause of action to challenge the subsequent
notification dated 06.01.2026. He further submitted
that if petitioners had disclosed the factum of pendency
of Writ petition (S/S) No. 2159 of 2024, in which the
original advertisement dated 16.10.2024 was
challenged, then the subsequent writ petition filed by
them would not have been entertained and they would
not have been successful in getting the interim order,
as was passed in their favour on 29.01.2026.
17. Challenge thrown by petitioners to the
advertisement dated 16.10.2024, in Writ Petition (S/S)
No. 2159 of 2024, is unsustainable. Law is settled that
available vacancies on sanctioned posts have to be
filled by regular appointment, as per the Recruitment
Rules and the practice of adhocism in filling such
vacancies has been deprecated by Constitutional
Courts. A casual/ad-hoc/daily rated employee engaged
2026:UHC:1378
against a sanctioned post to meet the exigencies of
work cannot question the advertisement, whereby
process for regular appointment against available
vacancies is set in motion. A casual or daily rated
employee do not have a vested right to hold the post
so as to defeat the rights of qualified persons who are
waiting for years for regular selection, unless there is a
statutory provision, which entitles such casual/daily
rated employee for regularisation of his services. In the
present case, there is neither any scheme nor any
Rules, which create a vested right of regularisation in
favour of the petitioners. Uttarakhand Government has
framed Regularisation Rules, however, persons
engaged through outsourcing are not eligible under the
said Rules. There are various other conditions of
eligibility mentioned in the said Rules, and one must
meet all the conditions before his claim can be
considered for regularisation. In the absence of any
legally enforceable right of regularisation in their
favour, challenge thrown by petitioners to the
advertisement dated 16.10.2024, is unfounded. The
ongoing selection for regular appointment on the post
of Pharmacist cannot be interfered with merely on the
asking of petitioners, only because they apprehend that
their engagement would come to an end once the
regular selection process is concluded. No flaw in the
ongoing selection is pointed out by the petitioners.
18. For the aforesaid reasons, the reliefs, as
claimed by petitioners in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2159
of 2024 cannot be granted. The Writ Petition (S/S) No.
2159 of 2024 is, accordingly, dismissed.
2026:UHC:1378
19. The subsequent writ petition i.e. Writ Petition
(S/S) No. 206 of 2026, filed by petitioners, is an
example of abuse of process of law. Subsequent writ
petition cannot be filed merely because a litigant could
not get desired relief in the earlier writ petition.
Petitioners did not have any cause of action for
maintaining Writ Petition (S/S) No. 206 of 2026, as
they had not applied pursuant to advertisement dated
16.10.2024, therefore, they were not affected by
subsequent notification dated 06.01.2026, issued by
the selecting body, whereby candidates were asked to
indicate choice regarding examination centre. In Writ
Petition (S/S) No. 206 of 2026, petitioner did not make
the mandatory disclosure about the relief sought in
their earlier writ petition and the number of earlier writ
petition was also not disclosed. Moreover, petitioners in
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 206 of 2026 suppressed the
material fact that in their earlier writ petition, they had
challenged the advertisement dated 16.10.2024,
whereby selection process for appointment as
Pharmacist was set in motion.
20. For the aforesaid reasons, Writ Petition (S/S)
No. 206 of 2026 is dismissed with cost of `50,000/-.
The amount of cost, if not deposited by the petitioners
within four weeks from today, shall be recoverable as
arrears of land revenue through the District Collectors
concerned.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
Dt: 18.02.2026
Navin
NAVEEN Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a131bb4e4
CHANDRA
403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56D653D09
5C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA
Date: 2026.02.26 21:10:24 +05'30'
