2026:UHC:1627 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/619/2026 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Prashant Khanna, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Petitioner was engaged as Research Officer on contract for one year in Programme Implementation Department of State Government vide order dated 17.03.2025. Annexure-1 to the writ petition indicates that said engagement was made on the recommendation of a duly constituted Selection Committee headed by Secretary, Programme Implementation Department. 3. Petitioner is aggrieved by subsequent advertisement issued on 14.01.2026 for contractual engagement as Research Officer in Programme Implementation Department, whereby applications are invited only from retired Government officers/employees. 4. Petitioner contends that condition mentioned in the impugned advertisement is unjust and it has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. 5. It is further contended that petitioner was engaged on contract for one year, therefore, in 2026:UHC:1627 the absence of any complaint regarding his work and performance, his term was liable to be extended and at any rate, he cannot be replaced by another contractual employee. He thus submits that the condition that only retired government officers/servants would be eligible for contractual engagement as Research Officer is sustainable. Reliance is placed upon a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Gupta and Another etc. etc. Vs. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti and others etc. etc. (Civil Appeal Nos. 3084-3088 of 2022). 6. Learned State Counsel per contra submits that the condition imposed in the impugned advertisement has a rationale, as State Government wants persons who have wide experience of serving under Government to be engaged as Research Officer, as they would be better equipped to monitor the progress of various welfare/development programmes. 7. He further submits that petitioner was engaged on contract only for one year and upon expiry of one year, he has no vested right to continue as Research Officer and there was no assurance given that he shall be re-engaged upon expiry of the term for which he was earlier engaged. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the 2026:UHC:1627 parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that condition mentioned in the impugned advertisement is unsustainable in the eyes of law. Since petitioner has acquired experience after serving for one year as Research Officer, therefore, he cannot be excluded altogether from the zone of consideration. Right to be considered for employment is a valuable right which can be denied only for some valid reason. The reason assigned for excluding the petitioner does not appear to be valid. 9. In such view of the matter, the impugned condition mentioned in the advertisement dated 14.01.2026 is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. 10. Writ petition is allowed. 11. The competent authority is directed to issue fresh advertisement, sans the impugned condition, if selection process has already not concluded. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 11.03.2026 Mahinder/ MAHINDER SINGH Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA4BABA43 D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH Date: 2026.03.12 19:07:59 +05'30' 2026:UHC:1627