2026:HHC:31447-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.376 of 2026 Reserved on: 08.07.2026 Decided on: 29.07.2026 Uploaded on: 29.07.2026 Sushma Devi & others … Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioners: Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Dinkar Bhaskar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Vikas Rathore, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge By way of this petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “(A) That the respondents may be directed to frame Regularisation Policy for the Marta regularising the services of the petitioners in the respondent Institute. (B) That in terms of the Regularisation Policy so framed, the respondent State may be directed to act in furtherance of the same and consider the petitioners for regularisation of their services. (C) Any other order deemed just and proper may also be passed in the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove in favour of the petitioners. (D) That respondent No.1 to 3 may be directed to regularise the service of the petitioners against the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:31447-DB regularly created posts, in terms of the regularisation policy of the State as followed in case of respondent no. 4.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the Himachal Pradesh Revenue Training Institute was established at Joginder Nagar, District Mandi in the year 1996. The purpose of establishing the said Institute was to impart training to Officers from the rank of Patwari to IAS Officers, as per the provisions of Chapter-29 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Records Manual. In terms of Annexure P-2, i.e. communication dated 03.07.2014, Principal Secretary-cum-Financial Commissioner (Revenue), to the Government of Himachal Pradesh intimated Director of Land Revenue that creation of 8 posts on contract basis had been approved in the Revenue Training Institute, Joginder Nagar. These were: 1 post of Mathematics Teacher, 1 post of Physical Education Teacher, 2 posts of Clerks, 1 post of Librarian, 2 posts of P.N. (Peon) and 1 post of Sweeper. In terms of Annexure P-3, Secretary, H.P. Subordinate Services Selection Board, Hamirpur, wrote to the Director of the Revenue Training Institute, Joginder Nagar, on the subject regarding the issue of NOC for filling the tenure-based posts sanctioned for Patwari training, that as per the Rules of Business and Procedure 2004, recruitment on a tenure basis was not within the purview of the Subordinate Service Selection Board, Hamirpur. 3 2026:HHC:31447-DB 3. Thereafter, an advertisement was issued vide Annexure P-4, inviting eligible candidates for the walk-in interview for the posts advertised therein. Pursuant to the interviews which took place on the basis of the advertisement Annexure P-4, the present petitioners were appointed against the posts of Clerk, Mathematics Teacher, Librarian, Peon and Sweeper on contractual basis for a period of one year vide appointment orders dated 12.08.2014 and 13.08.2014. 4. To cut the issue short, after their engagement as such, all the petitioners are till date serving the Institute on regular basis without any break etc., as the contractual service of the petitioners has been extended regularly. At this stage, it is relevant to mention that vide Annexure P-12, i.e. order dated 17.09.2016, approval was accorded by the Government to increase 50% of the Grade Pay in favour of 8 employees working on contract basis in Revenue Training Institute Joginder Nagar, subject to completion of codal formalities. Thereafter, in terms of Annexure P-13, 3% annual increment was also granted to the petitioners. 5. At this stage, it is also relevant to mention that on 04.05.2017, a communication was addressed by Additional Chief Secretary (Personnel) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, to all the Administrative Secretaries to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, all Divisional Commissioners, all Heads of Departments 4 2026:HHC:31447-DB and all Deputy Commissioners on the subject ‘regularization of contract appointees in the Government Departments instructions thereof’. In terms of these instructions, it was mentioned that the Government had decided that services of contractual appointees, who had completed 3 years continuous service as on 31.03.2017, be regularized and that it was also decided that contract appointees who are due to complete 3 years of continuous service as on 30.09.2017, shall be regularized after 30.09.2017. These instructions are on record appended as Annexure A-4 with CMP No. 19858 of 2025. 6. In terms of Annexures P-14 dated 21.08.2017, P-15 dated 14.03.2018 and P-16 dated 26.06.2019, Director of the respondent-Institute took up the issue with the Competent Superior Authorities for regularization of the services of the petitioners. Vide Annexure P-21, Director, Land Records informed that the Recruitment and Promotion Rules formulated by the Department of Personnel were applicable in the respondent-Institution and thereafter, vide communication dated 05.02.2020 (Annexure P-22), Director, Land Records again recommended the regularization of the services of the petitioners upon completion of 3 years of contractual service in terms of the regularization Policy dated 04.05.2017. 7. According to the petitioners, despite all these recommendations in their favour, in terms of Annexure P-25, 5 2026:HHC:31447-DB Principal Secretary and Financial Commissioner (Revenue) intimated Director, Land Records that status-quo qua services of the petitioners be maintained. Further, according to the petitioners, respondent No. 4 Smt. Kusum Lata was appointed as a Computer Teacher on a contractual basis in the respondent-Institute vide Annexure P-45 on 22.05.2007. Vide order dated 20.12.2013, one post of Computer Instructor was created in the Institute. DPC proceedings were held on 04.06.2014, which recommended the case of Smt. Kusum Lata for regularization and vide Annexure P-49 dated 04.06.2014, her services stand regularized. 8. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner referred to Annexure P-52 and submitted that in terms of this communication dated 04.03.2024, the conversion of seven posts of various categories in the respondent-Institute was approved by the Council of Ministers in its meeting held on 17.01.2024, by abolishing eight temporary posts previously created. It was also mentioned in said communication that the services of 7 persons engaged against the temporary post in Revenue Training Institute, Joginder Nagar be extended from time to time on year-to-year basis till the filling of these posts on regular basis. It was also mentioned that as far as the regularization of the services of petitioners against these newly created posts is concerned, regular posts are to be filled as per procedure laid down in Recruitment and Promotion Rules on the 6 2026:HHC:31447-DB basis of entrance examination conducted through appropriate Recruitment Agency and there was no provision in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules of these categories to convert the services of persons posted on temporary basis into regular ones. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that whereas on one hand, the regularization to the petitioners was being denied on account of justification contained in Annexure P-52, the private respondents stood regularized despite being similarly situated. In this backdrop, the writ petition was amended, assailing the regularization of the private respondents. Learned Senior Counsel argued that in the peculiar facts of this case, the non-regularization of the petitioners despite now regular posts being available is highly arbitrary, discriminatory and unjustified in law. He also argued that the petitioners were appointed through a walk-in interview, which was an open selection process undertaken by the Institute to fill up the posts which were advertised. Thus, he submitted that it is not as if the petitioners were appointed against the posts in issue through backdoor entry. He also submitted that in terms of Annexure P-3, NOC was obtained by the Institute from the Subordinate Service Selection Board, which led to the appointment of the petitioners on contract basis. 9. Learned Senior Counsel, by referring to the appointment letters of the petitioners submitted that it is evident and apparent 7 2026:HHC:31447-DB from the language of these office orders that the appointment of the petitioners was on contract basis. He further submitted that the petitioners, since the year 2014, are regularly serving in the respondent-Institute without any break and there is no impediment in their regularization. He submitted that all the petitioners are duly eligible and possess requisite educational qualifications for being regularized against the posts which are being held by them. He also submitted that for more than a decade, the petitioners have been performing their duties diligently without any remiss, which is also evident from the fact that there is no allegation of any misconduct against any of the petitioners. Learned Senior Counsel thus submitted that in these particular circumstances, the act of the Department of not regularizing the services of the petitioners is bad in law and accordingly he prayed that the present petition be allowed, as prayed for. 10. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the appointment of the petitioners in the mode and manner same cannot culminate into their regularization. He submitted that when the petitioners were engaged in the year 2014, the terms and conditions of appointment were made aware to them and it is not as if at that stage any assurance etc., was given to them that their services would be regularized. He submitted that though it is a matter of record that now regular posts stand created in the 8 2026:HHC:31447-DB Institute, but then the posts have to be filled in on the basis of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. He also submitted that as far as the regularization of respondent No.4 is concerned, she was rightly regularized in the backdrop of how she was engaged and as there is no similarity in the engagement of the said respondent with that of the petitioners, the petitioners neither can claim any similarity with respondent No.4 nor they can assail her regularization. 11. Learned Counsel appearing for the private respondents has also adopted the arguments of the learned Additional Advocate General. 12. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and also learned Additional Advocate General and learned Counsel for the private respondents. I have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith. 13. As there are applications filed with the writ petition, it is hereby ordered that applications which are on record and which yet have not been formally allowed, are hereby allowed and documents appended therewith are taken on record. 14. In the present case, the petitioners were engaged in the respondent-Institute against the posts which were created in terms of Annexure P-2. A perusal of Annexure P-2, dated 03.04.2014, demonstrates that when these posts were created, the creation thereof was on contract basis for a time period of one and a half 9 2026:HHC:31447-DB year, subject to completion of all codal formalities. The petitioners were appointed against the posts on the basis of a walk-in interview, which was held pursuant to advertisement Annexure P-4, dated 26.07.2014. The essential qualifications necessary, which a candidate was to fulfill for appointment against each post was categorically and expressly mentioned in the advertisement. 15. The petitioners were appointed after facing the walk-in interview, as they were fulfilling the eligibility criteria laid down in the advertisement. Though in terms of Annexure P-2, the posts were created for one and a half year, but fact of the matter is that after the appointment of the petitioners on contract basis against the said posts in the year 2014, they are continuing the same as such till date. Not only this, in terms of Annexure P-52, order dated 04.03.2024, the posts against which the petitioners are appointed have been now converted into regular posts. Meaning thereby, that as of now, the petitioners are serving against regular posts, though on contractual basis and, that too, at least from the month of March, 2024. 16. Though this Court is not going into the issue of the legality of regularization of the private respondent, but in light of the fact that the private respondent was also engaged on contractual basis in the respondent-Institute and that too after the petitioners and has been regularized in the year 2014, the petitioners cannot be 10 2026:HHC:31447-DB discriminated as far as their regularization is concerned. If one incumbent appointed on contract basis in the respondent-Institute could have been regularized as far back as in the year 2014 and that too someone engaged after the appointment of the petitioners on contract basis, then it is not understood as to what is the impediment in regularization of the petitioners, who at least are similarly situated as the private respondents to the extent that they were also engaged on contract basis in same Institute and are seeking their regularization. 17. The Policy referred to by learned Senior Counsel, issued by the State Government in the year 2017 also makes it amply clear that it was a conscious decision taken by the Government in the year 2017 that incumbents, who have completed 3 years of continuous service on contract basis as on the dates mentioned in the said instructions, were entitled for regularization. This Court is not suggesting that the petitioners should be regularized from the year 2017, because this Court is of the considered view that till the time regular posts were not created in the Institute, no order of regularization could have been passed in favour of the petitioners. However, once regular posts stand created on which the petitioners are presently performing their duties and further as the recruitment of the petitioners on contract basis was done by following a screening process which was open to all, the act of the respondents 11 2026:HHC:31447-DB of not regularizing the services of the petitioners even after more than 12 years of their engagement as such is not justified in law. 18. The petitioners are performing their duties in the Institute for the last 12 years. Least they expect from the Department is that in light of the long service rendered with the Institute, their services should be regularized. The posts against which the petitioners have been engaged include the posts of Peon, Sweeper, Librarian, Clerks and Mathematics Teacher. 19. At this stage, this Court would like to refer to certain recent judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, dealing with the subject of regularization of daily wagers and contractual employees. 20. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Jaggo Versus Union of India & Ors., 2024 SCC Online SC 3826, has been pleased to hold as under:- “………...10. Having given careful consideration to the submissions advanced and the material on record, we find that the appellants’ long and uninterrupted service, for periods extending well beyond ten years, cannot be brushed aside merely by labelling their initial appointments as part-time or contractual. The essence of their employment must be considered in the light of their sustained contribution, the integral nature of their work, and the fact that no evidence suggests their entry was through any illegal or surreptitious route. 11. The appellants, throughout their tenure, were engaged in performing essential duties that were 12 2026:HHC:31447-DB indispensable to the day-to-day functioning of the offices of the Central Water Commission (CWC). Applicant Nos. 1, 2, and 3, as Safaiwalis, were responsible for maintaining hygiene, cleanliness, and a conducive working environment within the office premises. Their duties involved sweeping, dusting, and cleaning of floors, workstations, and common areas—a set of responsibilities that directly contributed to the basic operational functionality of the CWC. Applicant No. 5, in the role of a Khallasi (with additional functions akin to those of a Mali), was entrusted with critical maintenance tasks, including gardening, upkeep of outdoor premises, and ensuring orderly surroundings. 12. Despite being labelled as “part-time workers,” the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature; instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants’ tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work. 13. The claim by the respondents that these were not regular posts lacks merit, as the nature of the work performed by the appellants was perennial and fundamental to the functioning of the offices. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their 13 2026:HHC:31447-DB initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants’ termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another, further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional. 17. As for the argument relating to educational qualifications, we find it untenable in the present context. The nature of duties the appellants performed—cleaning, sweeping, dusting, and gardening—does not inherently mandate formal educational prerequisites. It would be unjust to rely on educational criteria that were never central to their engagement or the performance of their duties for decades. Moreover, the respondents themselves have, by their conduct, shown that such criteria were not strictly enforced in other cases of regularization. The appellants’ long-standing satisfactory performance itself attests to their capability to discharge these functions, making rigid insistence on formal educational requirements an unreasonable hurdle.” In this judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is imperative for Government Departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the Organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the Organization to legal challenges and undermines employees morale. By ensuring fair 14 2026:HHC:31447-DB employment practices, Government Institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country. Hon’ble Supreme Court also held that the pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. 21. In Dharam Singh & Ors. Versus State of H.P. & Anr., 2025 SCC Online SC 1735 (2025 INSC 998), Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold as under:- “……...17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long-term extraction of regular labour under 15 2026:HHC:31447-DB temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines. 18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that "ad- hocism" thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If "constraint" is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running.” 22. In Bhola Nath Versus the State of Jharkhand & Ors., 2026 SCC Online SC 129 (2026 INSC 99), Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold as under:- “13. Another facet requiring consideration in the case of contractual employees, such as the present appellants, is the doctrine of legitimate expectation. Where employees have continued to discharge their duties on contractual posts for a considerable length of time, as in the present 16 2026:HHC:31447-DB case, it is but natural that a legitimate expectation arises that the State would, at some stage, recognize their long and continuous service. It is in this belief, bolstered by repeated extensions granted by the Executive, that such employees continue in service and refrain from seeking alternative employment, notwithstanding the contractual nature of their engagement. At this juncture, it is thus apposite to advert to the principles governing the doctrine of legitimate expectation as enunciated by this Court in Army Welfare Education Society v. Sunil Kumar Sharma, (2024) 16 SCC 598 wherein it was held as follows: - "63. A reading of the aforesaid decisions brings forth the following features regarding the doctrine of legitimate expectation: 63.1. First, legitimate expectation must be based on a right as opposed to a mere hope, wish or anticipation: 63.2. Secondly, legitimate expectation must arise either from an express or implied promise; or a consistent past practice or custom followed by an authority in its dealings; … 63.5. Fifthly, legitimate expectation operates in the realm of public law, that is. a plea of legitimate action can be taken only when a public authority breaches a promise or deviates from a consistent past practice, without any reasonable basis. 64. The aforesaid features, although not exhaustive in nature, are sufficient to help us in deciding the applicability of the doctrine of legitimate expectation to the facts of the case at hand. It is clear that legitimate 17 2026:HHC:31447-DB expectation. jurisprudentially, was a device created in order to maintain a check on arbitrariness in State action. It does not extend to and cannot govern the operation of contracts between private parties, wherein the doctrine of promissory estoppel holds the field." It is, therefore, not difficult to comprehend the expectation with which such contractual employees continue in the service of the State. The repeated conduct of the employer-State in expressing confidence in their performance and consistently granting monetary upgrades & tenure extensions reasonably nurtures an expectation that their long and continuous service would receive further recognition. 13.1. Another Constitution Bench in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 cautioned that the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot ordinarily be extended to persons whose appointments are temporary, casual or contractual in nature. The relevant extract of the judgment reads as follows: - "47. When a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognised by the reievant rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper procedure for selection and in cases concerned, in consultation with the Public Service 18 2026:HHC:31447-DB Commission. Therefore, the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary. contractual or casual employees. It cannot also be held that the State has held out any promise while engaging these persons either to continue them where they are or to make them permanent. The State cannot constitutionally make such a promise. It is also obvious that the theory cannot be invoked to seek a positive relief of being made permanent in the post." However, this Court in Umadevi (supra) clarified that the bar against invocation of the doctrine of legitimate expectation applies only to those temporary, contractual or casual employees whose engagement was not preceded by a proper selection process in accordance with the extant rules. Consequently, where such engagement is made after following a due and lawful selection procedure, there is no absolute bar in law preventing such employees from invoking the doctrine of legitimate expectation. Limits on Perpetual Contractual Engagements: 13.2. In the present case, the respondent-State had engaged the services of the appellants on sanctioned posts since the year 2012. It was only towards the end of the year 2022 that the respondents communicated that no further extension of the appellants' engagement was likely to be granted. 13.3. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid action is not only vitiated by arbitrariness but is also in clear derogation of the equality principles enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. The respondent-State initially 19 2026:HHC:31447-DB engaged the appellants in their youth to discharge public duties and functions. Having rendered long and dedicated service, the appellants cannot now be left to fend for themselves, particularly when the employment opportunities that may have been available to them a decade ago are no longer accessible owing to age constraints. 13.4. We are unable to discern any rational basis for the respondent-State's decision to discontinue the appellants after nearly ten years of continuous service. We are conscious that the symbiotic-relationship between the appellants and the respondent-State was mutually beneficial, the State derived the advantage of the appellants' experience and institutional familiarity, while the appellants remained in public service. In such circumstances, any departure from a long-standing practice of renewal, particularly one that frustrates the legitimate expectation of the employees, ought to be supported by cogent reasons recorded in a speaking order. 13.5. Such a decision must necessarily be a conscious and reasoned one. An employee who has satisfactorily discharged his duties over several years and has been granted repeated extensions cannot, overnight, be treated as surplus or undesirable. We are unable to accept the justification advanced by the respondents as the obligation of the State, as a model employer, extends to fair treatment of its employees irrespective of whether their engagement is contractual or regular. 20 2026:HHC:31447-DB 13.6. This Court has, on several occasions, deprecated the practice adopted by States of engaging employees under the nominal labels of "part-time", "contractual" or "temporary" in perpetuity and thereby exploiting them by not regularizing their positions. In Jaggo v. Union of India, 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 this Court underscored that government departments must lead by example in ensuring fair and stable employment, and evolved the test of examining whether the duties performed by such temporary employees are integral to the day-to-day functioning of the organization. 13.7. In Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, 2025 SCC Online SC 221 and Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, (2024) 9 SCC 327 this Court cautioned against a mechanical and blind reliance on Umadevi (supra) to deny regularization to temporary employees in the absence of statutory rules. It was held that Umadevi (supra) cannot be employed as a for years without undertaking regular recruitment. The Court further clarified that Umadevi itself draws a distinction between appointments that are "illegal" and those that are merely "irregular", the latter being amenable to regularization upon fulfilment of the prescribed conditions. 13.8. In Dharam Singh v. State of U.P. 2025 SCC Online SC 1735, this Court strongly deprecated the culture of "ad-hocism" adopted by States in their capacity as employers. The Court criticised the practice of outsourcing or informalizing recruitment as a means to evade regular employment obligations, observing that such measures 21 2026:HHC:31447-DB perpetuate precarious working conditions while circumventing fair and lawful engagement practices. 13.9. The State must remain conscious that part-time employees, such as the appellants, constitute an integral part of the edifice upon which the machinery of the State continues to function. They are not merely ancillary to the system, but form essential components thereof. The equality mandate of our Constitution, therefore, requires that their service be reciprocated in a manner free from arbitrariness, ensuring that decisions of the State affecting the careers and livelihood of such part-time and contractual employees are guided by fairness and reason. 13.10. In the aforesaid backdrop, we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the respondent-State's contention that the mere contractual nomenclature of the appellants' engagement denudes them of constitutional protection. The State, having availed of the appellants' services on sanctioned posts for over a decade pursuant to a due process of selection and having consistently acknowledged their satisfactory performance, cannot, in the absence of cogent reasons or a speaking decision, bruptly discontinue such engagement by taking refuge behind formal contractual lauses. Such action is manifestly arbitrary, inconsistent with the obligation of the ate to act as a model employer, and fails to withstand scrutiny under Article 14 of me Constitution. 23. In light of above-mentioned pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the fact that the petitioners have been 22 2026:HHC:31447-DB performing their duties diligently with the respondent-Institute for more than a decade now on contract basis, this Court is of the considered view that their services are entitled to be regularized. 24. It is not in dispute that there is a Policy of regularization being followed by the State Government and therefore, it is not as if there is no regularization of contract appointees in the State of Himachal Pradesh. More so, in light of the fact that the appointment of the petitioners was not through a back door entry, but through an open competition by way of a walk-in-interview and they were recruited as they were fulfilling the eligibility criteria laid down in the advertisement, they cannot be now denied regularization on the plea that the posts have to be filled in as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. The long service rendered by the petitioners cannot be negated by refusing regularization of their services, especially in light of the pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to hereinabove. 25. Accordingly, in light of the above observations, this writ petition is allowed. The act of the respondents of not regularizing the petitioners despite the posts against which they are serving having been converted to regular posts is held to be bad in law. Respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioners forthwith, i.e., from the date of this judgment, with all benefits. This Court is not disturbing the appointment of the private respondents. 23 2026:HHC:31447-DB 26. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 29, 2026 (Rishi)