Praveen Singh Rana vs State Of Uttarakhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 1335 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Praveen Singh Rana vs State Of Uttarakhand on 20 February, 2026

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                  Office Notes, reports,
                 orders or proceedings or
SL. No.   Date        directions and
                  Registrar's order with
                                                                            COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
                        Signatures
                                                                                                                       2026:UHC:1140
                                            WPSS No.496 of 2026
                                            Praveen Singh Rana
                                                                                                        --Petitioner
                                                                   Versus
                                            State Of Uttarakhand                                        --Respondent
                                            Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Mr. Priyansh Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Mr. Rajiv S. Bisht, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the State.

3. Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for respondent no.4.

4. Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal, learned counsel for respondent no.5.

5. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the advertisement no.74 of 2025 dated 03.12.2025 (Annexure No.6) with an additional prayer of petitioner's regularization on the post of Research Assistant in Uttarakhand Judicial and Legal Academy for which the said advertisement is issued.

6. It is contended by learned Counsel for petitioner that he has been working with respondent no.2 for last more than 12 years as a Research Assistant. This claim of the petitioner has been seriously opposed by learned counsel for the respondents saying that he has served in three different departments through UPNL, and therefore, he cannot claim regularization as a Research Assistant with respondent no.2-UJALA where he is working since August, 2024 only.

7. Since the petitioner is working with respondent no.2 only for last less than two years, therefore, he is not entitled to claim regularization on the post advertised and to challenge the advertisement issued for the post of Research Assistant.

8. In such view of the matter, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed at the admission stage itself.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 20.02.2026 R.Dang