Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 5492 (UTT)

ROHIT RANA v. INSPECTOR GENERAL PRISON

WPSS/622/2025 · 2025-05-02

Ravindra Maithani

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No.622 of 2025 Rohit Rana and another ...Petitioners Versus Inspector General, Prison Uttarakhand and others ….Respondents Present: Mr. Lalit Samant, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, D.A.G. for the State/respondent nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Yashpal Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate, for the respondent no.4. Mr. B.D. Pande, Advocate for the respondent no.5. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral) The petitioners seek mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners on the post of Assistant Accountant for regularization. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent no. 4/ Uttarakhand Purva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd (“UPNL”) deployed them for working in various prisons of the State of Uttarakhand on the position of Assistant Accountant. But now, six posts of Assistant Accountant have been advertised. Therefore, the claim for regularization has been made. 4. At the very outset, the Court wanted to know as to how it is a case for regularization? Whether the petitioners are entitle to regularization as per Rules? 2 5. The answer is in negative. But, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that since the petitioners have been working for a long, therefore, some weightage should be given for the services rendered by them. 6. The Court wanted to know as to under what provisions of law they should get weightage? 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners replies that there are no such Rules. 8 The petitioners have been working for some time on outsource basis. Admittedly, they are not within the zone of regularization as per the existing Rules. Now fresh advertisement for regular employment has been made. At the best, the petitioners can participate in the process. 9. There is no reason to make any intervention in this petition and the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 10. The petition is dismissed in limine. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 02.05.2025 Jitendra