IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.1918 of 2023 Reserved on:-04.06.2026 Decided on 29th June, 2026 Uploaded on:-29.06.2026 Gulzar Pathania and others …Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the petitioners: Mr. Sumesh Raj, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. D.S. Kainthla, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. Mr. Shivom Vashishta, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to allot the particular stations of post of Resin/Timber Watcher to the petitioners with immediate effect. ii) That the respondents No.1 to 3 may kindly be directed to release funds to the respondent No.4 with respect to salary of petitioners alongwith interest which they are entitled pursuant to their joining with further directions to continue releasing fund to respondent No.4 with respect to the salary of the petitioners.” 2. The case of the petitioners is that respondents No.1 to 3 took a decision to fill up 166 posts of Timber Watcher in a meeting held on 15.09.2022. Thereafter, respondents No.1 and 2 entered into an agreement with respondent No.4 to provide suitable persons against the said posts in the State. In the process, undertaken by respondent No.4, the petitioners participated and were recommended by respondent No.4, in terms of copies of appointment letter, Annexure P-1, for appointment against the post in issue. On the basis of the said recommendation of appointment, which was made on the basis of interviews held in the office of respondent No.4, in which, the qualification and experience etc., of the petitioners was assessed, the petitioners were directed to report in the office of Divisional Manager, Forest Works Division Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. The petitioners appeared and submitted their joining report(s) before respondent No.3 between 24.09.2022 and 26.09.2022. Thereafter, the petitioners were directed to report in the Work-shed of the respondent at Shamshi on 15.10.2022. The petitioners duly reported in the said Work-shed on 15.10.2022. However, on the said date, they were informed that as Model Code of Conduct stood imposed, therefore, they would have to wait. 3. To cut the controversy short, as even thereafter, the petitioners were not allowed to join against the post in issue, against which, they stood appointment in terms of Annexure P-1, they approached this Court for the relief mentioned hereinabove. 4. The stand of respondents No.2 and 3 is that, in terms of Annexure P-1, the petitioners were required to submit attested copies of educational qualification certificates, medical fitness certificate and character certificate, but, they failed to submit these documents and besides this, the post of Timber Watcher being field job, only those persons, who confirmed to the laid down criteria were to be retained. It is also the stand of the said respondents that the petitioners did not visit the office of respondent concerned between 24.09.2022 to 26.09.2022 and they did not deposit the requisite documents within 7 days in terms of the requirement. 5. In rejoinder, the petitioners have reiterated the averments made in the petition and they have also reiterated that they did submit their joining before respondent concerned, which would be evident from the fact that there was a separate register maintained therein, in which, the signatures of the petitioners were obtained. The petitioners have reiterated that they submitted their joining in the last week of September, 2022 and, therefore, Annexure R-1, appended with the reply cannot be used against them. It is also the contention of the petitioners that if any deficiency was found in the joining report of the petitioners, then, respondent No.3 could have intimated them about the said deficiency. 6. When this case was being heard earlier, on 22.07.2025, the following order was passed:- “Mr. Vanish Thakur, Divisional Manager is present in person and has shown Diary Dispatch Register. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that its contract as an outsource agency with respondents No.2 & 3 is coming to an end on 31.08.2025. At the request of learned counsel for the parties, list on 10.09.2025.” 7. On 10.09.2025, the following order was passed:- “Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that its case for extension of the agreement is pending consideration before the competent authority. In view of above, learned counsel for the petitioners as also learned counsel appearing for the respondents have jointly submit for deferring the hearing of this case by four weeks. List on 07.11.2025.” 8. Thereafter, on 07.11.2025, the following order was passed:- “Learned counsel for respondent No.4 informs that the agreement with HPSFDCL has been now extended w.e.f. 1st September 2025 to 31st August 2027. List for consideration on 25.11.2025.” 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that in the facts of the present case, the act of respondents No.1 to 3 of not permitting the petitioners for appointment against the post in issue is not sustainable in law. It has not been disputed before this Court that the work of appointment of Timber Watcher was outsourced by respondents No.1 to 3 to respondent No.4. It has also not been disputed before this Court that the Timber Watcher who were so appointed were recruited and recommended by respondent No.4. This Court is of the considered view that when the exercise of testing the eligibility was to be undertaken by respondent No.4, then, the contention of the Department that the petitioners were not fulfilling the criteria for being engaged against the post in question, may be on outsource basis, cannot be accepted on its face value. In fact, the appointment letters, Annexure R-1, demonstrate that it was held out to the petitioners therein that the petitioners stood appointed against the post of Resin/Timber Watcher on outsource basis till completion of work contract or termination or cancelation of the work award to the respondent No.4. It was further mentioned in this letter that the appointment of the petitioners was on the basis of their qualification experience and other eligibility criteria as well as on the basis of the interviews held. The stand of the respondents that the petitioners did not appear within 7 days in the office of respondent No.3 does not satisfy this Court. The very fact that the petitioners are agitating the issue before this Court is evident of the fact that they were serious about the job in issue. Once the petitioners were offered appointment against the post of Resin/Timber Watcher by respondent No.4 i.e., the outsource agency, to whom respondents No.1 to 3 had outsourced the appointment of Timber Watcher etc., respondents No.1 to 3 were under obligation to honour the appointment of the said persons. Incidentally, it has also not been disputed before this Court that others, who were duly recommended alongwith the petitioners, were offered appointment against the post in issue, whereas, the petitioners were discriminated. 10. Therefore, in the backdrop of the above observations, as this Court is of the considered view that denial of appointment to the petitioners on the strength of the appointment letter dated 14.10.2022, (Annexure R-1) is bad in law, this petition is allowed by directing respondents No.1 to 3 to forthwith permit the petitioners to join against the post in issue w.e.f. 01.07.2026. The appointment shall be prospective for all intent and purposes and this order has been passed by this Court in light of the fact that it stands recorded in the order passed by this Court dated 07.11.2025 that the agreement between the Department and respondent No.4 stands extended upto 31.08.2027. 11. The petition stands disposed of accordingly, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 29, 2026 (Vinod)