2025:UHC:8634 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S No. 3167 of 2017 Smt. Mohini and others -------Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others -----------Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. S.S.Rawat, learned Chief Standing Counsel, for the State. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon’ble Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, J.(oral) Petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition with the following prayers: (i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the claim of petitioners for regularization on post of Computer Programmer-cum-Operator held by them with consequential benefits. (ii) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to discontinue services of the petitioners and pay them regular salary, including arrears of outstanding dues against the minimum pay scale till the petitioners are given benefit of regularization. (iii) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to proceed any further with the selection and appointment on the post of Computer programmer-cum-Operator pursuant to the advertisement dated 20.11.2015 against the post held by the petitioners or in the alternate permit the petitioners to participate in the selection process without prejudice to their right of seeking regularization. 1 2025:UHC:8634 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that after filing of the writ petition, the petitioners were not allowed to work since 2018 and their services were orally terminated and now only the petitioner nos. 2 is being allowed to continue to work since 27.10.2023 through outsourcing. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus contends that the petitioner nos. 1, 3 & 4 may be given a liberty to file a fresh Writ Petition, if required, challenging the oral termination order and for the other reliefs. 3. In view of the said submissions, the present Writ Petition so far as it relates to the petitioner nos. 1, 3 & 4 are concerned is permitted to be withdrawn with liberty granted to the petitioner nos. 1, 3 and 4 to file fresh Writ Petition(s), challenging the oral termination order and for the other reliefs. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the present Writ Petition so far as it relates to the petitioner no. 2 is concerned, the same may be disposed of in view of the similar order passed by the Hon’ble Court in the case of Himani Sah & others vs. State of Uttarakhand in WPSB No. 281 of 2019, decided on 17.10.2024. The aforesaid Writ Petition was disposed of in view of the statement made by learned Chief Standing Counsel. The order dated 17.10.2024 reads as under: “2. Petitioners were engaged as Guest Lecturers in different Government Polytechnics, run by the State Government, in different years, and they were paid honorarium for the number of lectures they gave. Their status was, subsequently, changed to that of contract lecturers, and their honorarium was also revised to Rs. 2 2025:UHC:8634 3000/- per month w.e.f. 01.09.2014. Some of the petitioners approached this Court by filing Writ Petitions, and the Coordinate Bench of this Court directed for grant of minimum pay-scale to them, and also directed to consider their claim for regularization, ignoring the artificial break(s), if any, in their services. 3. The direction issued by this Court in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 409/2017 was challenged by the State Government before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 25919- 25928/2018, which were disposed of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 08.10.2018, and the State Government was granted liberty to approach the High Court by filing a Review Petition. The State Government, thereafter, filed a Review Petition before this Court. The Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 19.11.2018, allowed the Review Petition, and reviewed its earlier order dated 14.06.2018. 4. According to the petitioners, sometime in the month of October, 2018, they were orally directed not to mark their attendance in the Government Polytechnics, and, consequently, the petitioners filed these Writ Petitions before this Court, challenging the oral termination order. This Court, on 12.10.2023, passed the following order: “2. Petitioners were appointed as Lecturer/Instructor in different Government Polytechnics in different years, after due selection against sanctioned vacant post. According to petitioners, their contractual appointment was orally terminated before completion of their term, that too without assigning any reason. 3. Grievance of the petitioners is that the vacancies, against which they were appointed, are now being sought to be filled through outsourcing. 4. The stand taken by the State Government is that requisition for filling up such vacancies have been sent to Uttarakhand Public Service Commission and those vacancies are likely to be advertised shortly. Thus, it is apparent that sufficient number of vacancies are available on the post of Lecturer/Instructor in different 3 2025:UHC:8634 Government Polytechnics, which are sought to be filled through outsourcing, pending selection. 5. List these petitions for final disposal on 06.01.2024. In the meantime, such petitioners, who were eligible for appointment as Lecturer/Instructor at the time of their entry into service, shall be considered for engagement against available vacancies in different Government Polytechnics, within six weeks. Their engagement shall last till joining of the regularly selected persons” 5. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 12.10.2023, some of the petitioners were permitted to resume their duties, as lecturer/ instructor. 6. Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand, submits that all the petitioners, who had approached the Competent Authority in Technical Education Department by making a representation, have been restored back in employment, subject to availability of vacancies through outsourcing. Further, on instructions, he makes a statement that all the petitioners, and also the interveners, who have been offered engagement through outsourcing, in terms of the order of this Court, shall be considered for regularisation as per the applicable Rules, by treating their status to be that of a contract employee, and they will not be subjected to any disqualification only on the ground that the nomenclature given to them was through outsourcing. He further makes a statement at the bar that all persons, including the petitioners, who have been engaged through outsourcing pursuant to the order of this Court, shall be permitted to continue as lecturer/ instructor till joining of regularly selected candidates; he further submits that the claim of all these persons for regularisation shall be considered in terms of the applicable Recruitment Rules in vogue at the date of their initial appointment in the department, and their eligibility shall be judged accordingly. 7. In view of the aforesaid statements made by the learned Chief Standing Counsel, we, accordingly, dispose 4 2025:UHC:8634 of these Writ Petitions, by taking the statements made on behalf of the State Government, by learned Chief Standing Counsel, on record.” 5. The Court had asked the learned Chief Standing Counsel to appear before this Court and today, on instructions received, learned Chief Standing Counsel submits that there is only one post available, as such, the case of the petitioner no.2 can be considered in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Court in the case of Himani Sah vs. State in WPSB No. 281 of 2019, decided on 17.10.2024. 6. The said submission is placed on record. 7. The petitioner no. 2 is permitted to make representation to the respondent no.2 within a period of two weeks. In case, the said representation is moved within a period of two weeks along with certified copy of the order then the respondent no.2 shall consider the case of petitioner no.2 for regularization, as per the applicable rules in the light of the order passed by this Court in the case of Himani Sah vs. State in WPSB No. 281 of 2019, within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this Order. 8. With the above observations, the Writ Petition stands finally disposed of qua the petitioner no.2. (SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 22.09.2025 Kaushal 5