Uttarakhand High Court
2 September vs Uttarakhand Subordinate Service on 12 September, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:8161
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2130 of 2023
12 September, 2025
Kuldeep Singh --Petitioner
Versus
Uttarakhand Subordinate Service
Selection Commission and others. -Respondents
with
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2134 of 2023
Rupalee Thapa --Petitioner
Versus
Uttarakhand Subordinate Service
Selection Commission and others. --Respondents
with
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2342 of 2024
Ashish Sharma --Petitioner
Versus
Uttarakhand Subordinate Service
Selection Commission and others. --Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ganesh Dutt Kandpal, Deputy Advocate General, Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht,
Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Mr. Narain Dutt, Standing Counsel and Mr.
Dinesh Bankoti, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. B.D. Pande, Advocate for Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection
Commission.
Mr. Rajendra Arya, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for
UPNL.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1
2025:UHC:8161
JUDGMENT
Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these petitions, therefore, all these petitions are clubbed together and are being heard & decided by a common judgment.
2. Petitioners were engaged on contract in Permanent Lok Adalat, Dehradun through outsourcing agency, namely UPNL, for discharging ministerial functions. An advertisement was thereafter issued, whereby applications were invited from eligible candidates for regular appointment against those very vacancies. Petitioners have challenged the said advertisement issued on 13.10.2023 on the ground that since petitioners were substantively appointed, therefore, there cannot be any regular appointment against the posts, which are held by petitioners.
3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners relies upon definition of the term 'substantive appointment' as given in Rule 3(1) (q) of the Recruitment Rules, notified on 31.08.2021. The same is extracted below:-
"3 (1) (q). 'Substantive Appointment' means an appointment, not being an adhoc appointment, on a post in the cadre of the service made after selection in accordance with the rules and, if there are no rules, in accordance with the procedure prescribed, for the time being by the executive instructions issued by the Government."2
2025:UHC:8161
4. The contention based on Rule 3 (1) (q) of the Recruitment Rules is bereft of merit. As per Rule 3 (1) (q), ad-hoc or contractual appointment do not qualify to be a substantive appointment and only a person, who is appointed to a post in the cadre after due selection as per the Rules, can be said to be substantively appointed and in the absence of Recruitment Rules, anyone who is appointed as per the procedure prescribed by executive instructions against a sanctioned post can also be treated as substantively appointed, provided such appointment was made after selection, in which all eligible candidates had the opportunity to participate.
5. Perusal of the documents enclosed with the writ petition reveal that in view of the request made by Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat, the outsourcing agency (UPNL) sponsored petitioners for serving on contract as Munsirim/Reader and term and conditions of their engagement were indicated in a written contract executed between UPNL and Permanent Lok Adalat.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that petitioners were engaged after due selection, therefore, their engagement cannot be referred as irregular and they cannot be disengaged, however there is no material on record 3 2025:UHC:8161 to show that petitioners were engaged after facing process of selection in which all eligible persons had opportunity to participate.
7. From the material on record, it is revealed that Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat asked the outsourcing agency to supply manpower and UPNL in turn, sponsored name of the petitioners; the process of selection does not appear to have undertaken while sponsoring the name of petitioners. Even otherwise also, registration with UPNL (outsourcing agency) does not involve selection and any person who meets the eligibility criteria can get himself registered, who then can be sponsored for employment. The writ petition is absolutely silent regarding the stage at which petitioners were subjected to process of selection.
8. In the present case, petitioners are not directly employed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, but they are engaged through UPNL, which is an agency formed to supply manpower. A contractual employee engaged through UPNL cannot be treated as substantively appointed in Permanent Lok Adalat. Thus, petitioners do not have any right to hold the post.
9. The agreement executed between Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat and Uttarakhand Purva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. (UPNL) is enclosed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The workmen, 4 2025:UHC:8161 which UPNL undertook to supply, are indicated in Clause 2 of the contract. Clause 3 indicates that contract was for a duration of 11 months. The wages payable to the outsourced workmen are indicated in Clause 4. Clause 7 indicates that the amount payable as wages, shall be paid by Permanent Lok Adalat to UPNL and UPNL shall ensure payment thereof to the workmen.
10. Learned State Counsel drew attention of this Court to Clause 21 & 22 of the contract. Clause 21 (b) provides that if performance of the workmen sponsored by UPNL is not found satisfactory, then Permanent Lok Adalat shall have the right to change such employee under intimation to UPNL. Sub-clause (c) of Clause 21 provides that if services of an outsourced employee are no more required due to appointment or transfer of regular employee in his place, then Permanent Lok Adalat will give intimation of the same to the employee, under intimation to UPNL to terminate his/her services. Clause 22 of the contract further provides that contractual employees, employed through outsourcing, will not claim permanent employment with Permanent Lok Adalat.
11. Learned State Counsel submits that pursuant to the advertisement dated 13.10.2023, issued by respondent no. 1, selection process concluded long back, but, the candidates recommended for appointment against vacancies in 5 2025:UHC:8161 Permanent Lok Adalat, Dehradun are not able to join duties because of interim orders passed in these writ petitions. He submits that a contractual employee cannot question the appointment of regularly selected candidates and a casual employee, whether ad-hoc or contract employee, can be permitted to continue only till joining of regularly selected candidates and not thereafter.
12. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned State Counsel. Petitioners were engaged on contract through UPNL only till joining of regularly selected candidates. Clause 21 (c) of the contract contains a clear stipulation to this effect. The advertisement in question was issued on 13.10.2023, written examination was held in December, 2023 and final result of the selection, was declared in the month of October, 2024. Candidates recommended by respondent no. 1 were offered appointment by Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat, Dehradun vide order dated 06.02.2025, however, their appointment was subsequently cancelled on 13.02.2025 because of the interim order passed in these writ petitions.
13. Law is well settled that a person who is appointed after facing rigorous process of selection held as per the Recruitment Rules has a better claim compared to the one engaged by way of stop- gap arrangement, till regular selection. Since 6 2025:UHC:8161 regularly selected candidates are now available, therefore, petitioners have to give way to the selected candidates.
14. Admittedly, petitioners were engaged by way of stop-gap arrangement, therefore, they cannot claim a right better than that of the persons recommended by the Commission. The regularly selected persons cannot be made to wait, merely because petitioners are now claiming a right on the post.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharam Singh and others v. State of U.P. and another, rendered in Civil Appeal No(s). 8558 of 2018. Paragraph nos. 17 & 18 of the said judgment are reproduced below:-
"17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides 7 2025:UHC:8161 fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines.
18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that "ad- hocism" thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If "constraint" is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running."
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 8 2025:UHC:8161 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 9 2025:UHC:8161 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.
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.
________________________ MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.
Dt: 12.09.2025 Navin NAVEEN Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a131bb4e CHANDRA 4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56D653D0 95C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.09.18 19:36:56 +05'30' 10