IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7023 of 2022 Date of Decision:01.12.2025 _______________________________________________________ All India Association of Community Health Officers & others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Raghav Goel and Mr. Inderjeet Narwal, Advocates. For the Respondents:Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate Generals, for the respondents-State. Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Senior Panel Counsel, for respondents No.2, 5 and 6. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for following main reliefs: “i) Issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned advertisement No.9 of 2022 dated 19.09.2022 (Annexure P-8) issued by the respondent No. 7 and 8 i.e. Atal Medical and Research University, HP, whereby online recruitment application have been invited from candidates to fill up 723 posts of Community Health Officer (CHO) in National Health Mission( NHM) Programme on NHM Contract Basis, despite the fact that the petitioners being eligible candidates alongwith 680 other candidates are already 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 deployed on the post of CHO and have already rendered 2 ½ -3 years of service on contractual basis’ ii) Further prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned advertisement as the action of the respondent State is highly arbitrary and cryptic in nature in view of the facts that the State has made an endeavor to oust the petitioners who are deputed as CHO in different parts of the State and the action is grossly illegal and unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and thus is liable to be set aside and as such the respondents may kindly be directed to utilize the services of the petitioners who are working as CHO on contract basis till such time persons are selected on regular basis through regular recruitment and till the time they join against the regular posts; iii) Further respondents may kindly be directed that the petitioners who are working as CHO’s shall not be replaced by another set of contractual employees either directly or through any placement agencies and the contract of petitioners shall be renewed periodically till the requirement of their services subsists and their services are found satisfactory and till such time the post are not filled up through regular recruitment process. That the action of respondents is clearly suggestive that the State is resorting to methods whereby adhoc employees already serving as CHO are being replaced by another set of adhoc employees, which is in violation of the well expounded law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 1992 Supreme Court 2130, 2007(13) SCC 292 as well as 2003(10) SCC 284; iv) Further with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to absorb the petitioners/CHO recruited in first and second batch 3 against the advertisement No.9/2022 dated 19.09.2022 whereby 723 posts of CHO’s have been advertised as the petitioners having rendered 2 ½ -3 years of continuous service as they have the first right over the vacancies so advertisement vide impugned advertisement. Further during the pendency of the writ petition the respondents be restrained from replacing the petitioners with another set of adhoc/contractual employees pursuant to the impugned advertisement and petitioner’s may kindly be allowed to continue till such time the post is filled by regular appointees.” 2. In the case at hand, petitioners herein were given appointment against the posts of Community Health Officers (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CHO’), after their having cleared written test conducted by an outsource agency, namely HLL Lifecare Limited, which had entered into a contract with the National Health Mission ( for short ‘NHM’) for providing human resources. After their appointment against the post in question, they have been performing their duties to the utmost satisfaction of the Department concerned. Though, in total, 1500 posts of CHOs were required to be filled up under the National Health Mission, but, at first instance, Government filled up 674 posts through an outsource agency, as detailed hereinabove, by following the due selection process. Now, since the respondents have started the process for filling up the remaining 723 posts, petitioners herein approached this Court in the 4 instant proceedings, seeking direction to the respondents not to replace them by another set of contractual employees. 3. Though, by way of filing reply to the petition, respondents herein refuted the claim of the petitioners, but during the proceedings of the case, it has transpired that at present, there is no proposal, if any, to replace the petitioners with another set of contractual employees, rather process, if any, was initiated to fill up the remaining posts. 4. On 27.11.2025, learned Advocate General invited attention of this Court to communication dated 12th October, 2022 (Annexure R-3/III) annexed with the application bearing CMP No. 28753 of 2025, to state that as per clarification issued by the Government of India, the State Government is well within its right to engage persons for the National Health Mission and necessarily, in terms of aforesaid clarification, it is not under any obligation to recruit human resources for the National Health Mission through NHRM contract. He stated that since there are 1500 sanctioned posts and 627 petitioners are already working at present, there is no proposal to re-advertise such posts, which are occupied by the petitioners, especially during the subsistence of contract between HLL Lifecare Limited and National Health Mission. In afore background, this Court passed detailed order dated 27.11.2025, which reads as under:- “Precisely, the ground of the petitioners herein, who at present have been working as Community Health Officers 5 against the sanctioned posts in National Rural Health Mission, pursuant to Memorandum of Understanding signed inter se M/s HLL Lifecare Limited, a Government of India entity, and the National Health Mission, Himachal Pradesh, is that though they have been working against the posts, as detailed hereinabove, for approximately 4-5 years, but yet are now being sought to be replaced by another set of contractual employees. Though, respondents, in the reply, have fairly admitted factum with regard to petitioners’ employment on the post concerned, as detailed hereinabove, but it has been further stated that Advertisement No.9/2022, dated 19th September, 2022, was issued for filling up 723 posts of Community Health Officers, which were in addition to posts already occupied by the petitioners and at present there is no proposal to replace the petitioner by another set of contractual employees. Though, Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Advocate General, while making this Court peruse communication, dated 12th October, 2022 (Annexure R-3/III) annexed with the application bearing CMP No. 28753 of 2025, submitted that as per clarification issued by the Government of India, the State Government is well within its rights to engage persons for the National Health Mission and necessarily, in terms of aforesaid clarification, it is not under any obligation to recruit human resources for the National Health Mission through NHRM contract. He states that since there are 1500 sanctioned posts and 627 petitioners are already working at present, there is no proposal to re-advertise such posts, which are occupied by the petitioners, especially during the subsistence of contract between HLL Lifecare Limited and National Health Mission. Though, it is apparent from aforesaid submissions made by learned Advocate General that at present petitioners are not being thrown out and they are also not being replaced by another set of employees, as apprehended by the 6 petitioners, but yet with a view to have more clarity in the matter, let learned Advocate General have specific instructions in that regard from the competent authority, enabling this Court to pass appropriate orders. List on 01.12.2025, as prayed for by learned Advocate General. While taking instructions in terms of instant order, learned Advocate General may specifically apprise authority concerned that it is by now well settled that one set of contractual employees cannot be replaced by another set of contractual employees, rather such contractual employees are required to be given work till the time they are replaced by regular hands” 5. Pursuant to the afore order passed by this Court, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, has placed on record communication dated 29th November 2025, issued under the signatures of Mission Director, National Health Mission, which reads as under:- “ In this regard, it is submitted that the petitioners have been engaged through outsourcing agency i.e. HLL Lifecare Ltd., in the health institutions of the State against the posts approved by RoP of NHM for smooth function of the national health programmes. They shall not be replaced until regular appointment by State Government are made or till the continuation of National Health Mission by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, whichever is earlier”. 6. Careful perusal of aforesaid communication reveals that though petitioners herein have been engaged through an outsourcing agency, HLL Lifecare Ltd., in the National Health Mission of the State against the posts approved in the RoP of NHM for the smooth 7 functioning of the National Health Programme, but they shall not be replaced until regular appointments by the State Government are made or till the continuation of National Health Mission by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Government of India, whichever is earlier. 7. In view of aforesaid fair stand adopted by the respondent- State, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings. Once the respondent-State has categorically stated before this Court, through communication, as detailed hereinabove, that 627 CHOs already working in the State shall not be replaced until regular appointment by the State Government is made or till the continuation of National Health Mission by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, whichever is earlier, no directions are required to be passed. 8. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of, with a direction to the respondents to ensure compliance of aforesaid communication dated 29.11.2025. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law by filing a substantive writ petition qua the surviving grievance, if any. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 1. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 01,2025 (shankar)