[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Th February vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 11 February, 2026
2026:UHC:810-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY
WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 160 OF 2022
11TH FEBRUARY, 2026
Abhinav Thapar ...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & another ...... Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Abhijay Negi and Ms. Snigdha
Negi, learned counsels
Counsel for the respondents : Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel with Mr.
Gajendra Tripathi, learned Standing
Counsel for the State
: Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, learned Senior
Counsel (through VC) assisted by
Mr. Vikas Bahuguna, learned counsel
for respondent No. 2
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
(per Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)
1) The following reliefs have been prayed for in the
present Public Interest Litigation :
"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the State of Uttarakhand
and the Uttarakhand Vidhan Sabha to submit all
records pertaining to all recruitments made to all
posts in the Uttarakhand Vidhan Sabha right from
2026:UHC:810-DB
the inception of the State of Uttarakhand before this
Hon'ble court in original.
(b) To constitute a high level judicial inquiry, by a
special investigation team to be headed by judicial
member, to look into the persons involved in
perpetuating the illegalities in the highest law
making body the State of Uttarakhand, the systemic
failure so caused and to ensure that the said failure
is not repeated in the future.
(c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the respondent Nos. 1 and
2 to recover the expenses incurred in salary /
allowances of irregularly appointed personnel from
the officials involved in appointments of these ad-
hoc appointments in Vidhan Sabha as per the
Government Order dated 6th February 2003."
2) The petitioner in the present public interest
litigation has raised the issue of illegal appointments made
in Uttarakhand Vidhan Sabha in the past without following
any procedure. The case is that several appointments
have been made without advertising the posts and without
holding any selection, resulting in violation of the
constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution.
3) A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of
respondent No. 2 in which it is not denied that
appointments were made in the past without following any
2026:UHC:810-DB
procedure. Noticing the stand taken in the counter-
affidavit, on 07.07.2023, the following order was passed :
"1. Mr. Abhijay Negi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel for the State.
3. Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for respondent
no.2.
4. Mr. Negi has referred to the counter-affidavit filed
on behalf of respondent no.2. He submits that a perusal
of the said affidavit shows that despite it being
recommended that ad hoc appointments be not made
dehors the Rules, the appointments were directed to be
made at the higher levels. As many as 396 appointments
were made from 2001 onwards and even up till 2021. In
Paragraph No.7 of the counter-affidavit filed by
respondent no.2, the year-wise breakup of such ad hoc
appointments has been provided.
5. We direct the petitioner as well as respondent no.2
to file their respective affidavits wherein they should
indicate the persons/ authorities responsible for the
making of the ad hoc appointment dehors the Rules, and
dehors the Government Order dated 06.02.2003.
6. Let the affidavit in this regard be filed by the
petitioner as well as respondent no.2 within three weeks.
7. List on 04.08.2023."
4) In compliance of the aforesaid order, affidavit
was filed by respondent No. 2 and, thereafter, taking note
2026:UHC:810-DB
of the stand taken in the said affidavit further order was
passed on 28.02.2024, which is as follows :
"1. Mr. Abhijay Negi and Ms. Snigdha Tiwari, learned
counsel for petitioner.
2. Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Standing Counsel for the
State of Uttarakhand.
3. Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for
respondent no. 2.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. Pursuant to the order dated 07.07.2023, as of today
166 ad hoc employees, who were appointed without
following the procedure, have been regularised in the
year 2015, and 227 ad hoc employees, who were not
appointed as per law, have been removed on
23.09.2022. To this extent, facts are not in dispute
between the parties.
6. The next question for consideration is what steps
the respondents have taken regarding these wrong
appointments made, without following any procedure of
selection, even on ad hoc basis as per G.O. dated
06.02.2003.
7. The respondents are given direction to file an
affidavit, what steps they have taken, as per the
Government Order dated 06.02.2003.
8. List on 20.06.2024."
5) In pursuance thereto, an affidavit was filed on
9th July 2024, on behalf of respondent No. 2, in which the
2026:UHC:810-DB
stand taken is that all the said appointments were made
on the direction of the then Hon'ble Speakers with the
concurrence of the then Chief Ministers overlooking the
objections raised by the Vidhan Sabha Secretariat.
6) Para No. 9 of the said affidavit is reproduced
below :
"That it is further submitted that, the issue of action
under GO dated 06.02.2003 has to examined keeping in
mind the facts as stated in the supplementary affidavit
dated 18th July 2023, these appointments were made on
the direction of the then Hon'ble Speakers with the
concurrence of the then Hon'ble Chief Ministers by not
accepting the advice of the Vidhan Sabha Secretariat /
Departments of the Govt."
7) Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 submits that
respondent No. 2, after seeking approval from the State
Government, terminated the services of such illegal
appointees, issuing separate orders, between 26th
September 2022 and 28th September 2022. These
persons have filed writ petitions before this Court and
their writ petitions are still pending. He submits that
respondent No. 2 has, therefore, itself acted in the matter
2026:UHC:810-DB
in accordance with law. He further submits that since the
appointments were made on the direction of the then
Speaker, who held a constitutional post and, therefore,
the controversy be laid at rest at this stage in respect of
prayer No. (c).
8) It is not disputed even by learned counsel for
the petitioner that the second respondent had itself
constituted an enquiry committee and based on the said
report terminated the illegal appointments even before
the present writ petition was filed. Respondent No.2 has
also identified the persons responsible for the said
appointments. Therefore, in our view, no further direction
is required to be issued in respect of relief Nos.(a) and
(b).
9) Further, having regard to the stand taken by
respondent No. 2 in its affidavit in respect of the person
responsible for making the appointments, referable to
relief No. (c), we do not deem it appropriate to examine
the issue any further in the present Public Interest
Litigation, and consider it appropriate to give quietus to
the said aspect.
10) Accordingly, the present writ petition is
consigned to record.
2026:UHC:810-DB
11) The disposal of the present PIL or any
observation made herein would not have any effect on the
writ petitions which are stated to be pending before this
Court at the behest of the persons whose services were
terminated by respondent No. 2.
12) Pending application(s), if any, also stand
disposed of.
_______________________
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.
_________________
SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
TH
Dt: 11 FEBRUARY, 2026
Negi
HIMANS
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=bb3b60774012c1ef1dae20d13a
af116e73351fdaf6878326386908a7f90d5
HU NEGI
757, postalCode=263001,
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=75BD9D0FB7F4A80990FC
51A722A6BC552D470EB4FD2F88DDF7C
18DB2A1524A4D, cn=HIMANSHU NEGI
Date: 2026.02.13 11:36:30 +05'30'
