2026:HHC:36862 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 8421 of 2022 a/w CWPs No. 8282, 8417 and 8810 of 2022 and CWPS No. 39 of 2023 Reserved on : 18.08.2026 Decided on: 31 .08 .2026 Uploaded on:31.08.2026 CWP No. 8421 of 2022 Dr. Abhimanyu Dehal and others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another … Respondents CWP No. 8282 of 2022 Dr. Pallavi Chauhan …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another … Respondents CWP No. 8417 of 2022 Dr. Tanvi Bhardwaj …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another … Respondents CWP No. 8810 of 2022 Dr. Nitin Dhiman …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another … Respondents CWP No. 39 of 2023 Dr. Shilpa …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another … Respondents Coram 2 2026:HHC:36862 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner(s) : Mr. Onkar Jairath, Senior Advocate with M/s Anshul Jairath and Piyush Mehta, Advocates in CWPs No. 8421, 8810 of 2022 and CWP No. 39 of 2023. : Ms. Ritu Raj Sharma, Advocate in CWP No. 8417 of 2022. : Mr. Sat Parkash, Advocate in CWP No. 8282 of 2022. For the respondents : Mr. R.P. Singh, Deputy Advocate General for respondents-State, in all the petitions. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge As common issues of law and fact are involved in these petitions, they are being disposed of vide a common judgment. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of these petitions are that on 29.11.2021, a notice was issued by the Health Department, inviting eligible candidates for a walk-in-interview against 81 vacant posts of Medical Officers, on contract basis. The walk-in-interview was conducted on 07.12.2021, in which, a total of 405 candidates, including the petitioners, appeared. After completion of the process of interview, a merit list of 76 eligible candidates was prepared and the names of the petitioners also figured therein. In light of this development, the petitioners were legitimately expecting that they shall be offered appointments against the posts of Medical 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 3 2026:HHC:36862 Officers, but to their utter surprise and dismay, on 01.022022, the appointment was offered only to 43 candidates and the remaining 33 candidates were denied the offer of appointment. Some of the persons, similarly situated as the petitioners herein, approached this Court by way of different writ petitions. One of such writ petitions was CWP No. 1393 of 2022 titled Dr. Aishwarya Thakur and others vs. State of H.P. and others. This writ petition was allowed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court along with connected matters in terms of judgment dated 17th of November, 2022. The Hon’ble Division Bench took cognizance of the fact that the petitions of some similarly situated persons stood rejected by the Court, and ultimately, the following findings were returned by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court: “14. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the action of the respondents in not offering appointments to the petitioners, although, they were found eligible for appointment on contract basis as Medical Officers, in pursuance to their taking part in the walk-in-interview, appears to be arbitrary and without application of mind. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon by the learned Additional Advocate General in Shankarsan Dash’s case supra, fails to advance the case of the respondents. 4 2026:HHC:36862 15. In case, the decision taken by the respondents not to fill up the posts beyond the candidates mentioned up to serial number 43 in the merit list, had been taken in isolation, this Court would not have interfered in the said action of the respondents. However, in the present case, although, appointment letters were not offered to all the 76 eligible candidates who had appeared in the walk-in-interview on 7.12.2021 by taking a plea that only 43 vacancies were available, but after a couple of months, again 144 posts of Medical Officers were sought to be filled up on contract basis on the basis of walk-in-interview. Thereafter, 300 more posts have been sought to be filled up by issuing a notice in the month of July, 2022. This shows that vacancies were available and there is no justifiable reason for not offering appointments to all the eligible candidates whose names were mentioned in the merit list Annexure P-4. The reason put forth by the respondents for not offering appointment letters to the petitioners is baseless in the facts of the present case. 16. So far as the dismissal of CWP No.3399 of 2022 vide order dated 31.5.2022 is concerned, the relief sought in the said petition was different. In the said 5 2026:HHC:36862 petition, the petitioners had sought the relief that they should be offered appointments in view of the merit list prepared in pursuance to walk-in-interview held on 7.12.2021. The merit list prepared on the basis of walk- in-interview held on 7.12.2021 was concerning vacancies available with the respondent-Department in November, 2021, whereas, walk-in-interview sought to be conducted in pursuance to notice issued on 12.4.2022, was qua different vacancies and the notice issued by the respondents was not challenged. 17. So far as the dismissal of CWP No.5701 of 2022 vide order dated 13.9.2022 is concerned, the question involved in the said case was as to whether the respondents could hold written test for filling up the posts. However, so far as the present case is concerned, the issue involved is as to whether the petitioners were liable to be issued appointment letters on account of their having been found eligible in pursuance to the walk-in-interview held on 7.12.2021. From the facts available on record, it is evident that vacancies were available with the respondents of Medical Officers, but for some unknown reasons, they did not offer appointment letters to the petitioners. The State cannot 6 2026:HHC:36862 act in an arbitrary manner and without any justifiable cause decline to issue appointment letters to the eligible candidates. State has been filling up vacancies of Medical Officers immediately after their decision not to offer appointment letters to the petitioners and there is no justifiable reason to deny the offer of appointment letters to the petitioners who have been found eligible. 18. Hence, we are of the opinion that the instant petitions deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. The 20 respondents are directed to offer appointment letters to the petitioners within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 19. To come up for compliance on 30.12.2022. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.” 3. After the adjudication in the matter by the Hon’ble Division Bench in Dr. Aishwarya Thakur's case, the petitioners approached this Court by way of the above-mentioned writ petitions. In the interregnum, the State preferred a Special Leave Petition against the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Aishwarya Thakur's case. The Court stands informed that those of the petitioners whose cases were rejected by this Court 7 2026:HHC:36862 earlier also approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in terms of judgment dated 12th May, 2026 in Civil Appeal No. 7949-7950 of 2026, arising out of SLP(C) No.15579-15580 of 2023, titled The State of Himachal Pradesh and another vs. Aishwarya Thakur and others, was pleased to hold as under:- “30. Having held that the State was not justified in restricting the process to 43 appointments, the relief must be moulded in a manner which is fair, uniform and confined to the candidates who are before this Court in the present batch of appeals. 31. The recruitment process resulted in one common list of 76 eligible candidates pursuant to the walk-in interview held 3 on on 07.12.2021. However, we do not consider it appropriate to extend relief to all persons included in the said list, including those who have not approached this Court. Therefore, the benefit of the present judgment shall, therefore, be confined to such candidates who are parties before this Court in the present batch of appeals and whose names are included in the list of 76 eligible candidates. 32. This would include the writ petitioners in CWP Nos. 1393 and 2606 of 2022, who are respondents in 8 2026:HHC:36862 the State appeals, and the appellants in the appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 21745-21746 of 2023, namely, Dr. Sonali Sharma and others, to the extent they are before this Court and continue to pursue relief. The benefit of this judgment shall not extend to any candidate who is not before this Court or who has chosen not to pursue relief in these proceedings. 33. The State of Himachal Pradesh and the Director of Health Services, Himachal Pradesh, shall issue fresh appointment orders to such candidates, subject to verification of eligibility, educational qualifications, registration, documents, medical fitness, character antecedents and other formal requirements applicable to appointment to the post of Medical Officer on contract basis. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of this judgment 34. The inter se seniority of all candidates appointed pursuant to the present judgment, including the respondents in the State appeals and the appellants in the appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 21745-21746 of 2023, shall be governed by their respective position in the original list of 76 eligible candidates prepared pursuant to the walk-in interview held on 07.12.2021. 9 2026:HHC:36862 No candidate shall claim seniority or any other service advantage merely on the basis of earlier joining pursuant to the judgment dated 17.11.2022 passed by the High Court. 35. It is clarified that all such appointments shall operate prospectively from the date of issuance of fresh appointment orders pursuant to this judgment. No candidate shall be entitled to claim back wages, retrospective seniority or any other monetary benefit for the period prior to such fresh appointment merely on the basis of inclusion in the list of 76 eligible candidates or on the basis of any order passed by the High Court. However, salary or remuneration already paid to any candidate for actual service rendered pursuant to the orders of the High Court shall not be recovered. 36. Consequently, the judgment and order dated 17.11.2022 passed by the High Court in CWP Nos. 1393 and 2606 of 2022 is sustained in substance, but the relief granted therein stands modified in the above terms. The judgment and order dated 31.05.2022 passed in CWP No. 3399 of 2022 and the order dated 15.03.2023 passed in Review Petition No. 15 of 2023 are set aside to the extent they deny similar treatment to 10 2026:HHC:36862 Dr. Sonali Sharma and others. The orders passed in the review petitions arising out of CWP Nos. 1393 and 2606 of 2022 shall stand merged in the present judgment. 37. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. 38. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.” 5. While disposing of said appeals, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, inter alia, held that the benefit of its judgment shall be confined to such candidates who were parties before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said bunch of appeals and whose names were included in the list of 76 eligible candidates. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also held that the benefit of the judgment shall not extend to any candidate who was not before the Hon’ble Supreme Court or who had chosen not to pursue relief in said proceedings. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners argued that at the time when the decision was rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal, referred to herein above, the writ petitions of the petitioners were already pending before this Hon’ble Court. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that as the judgment of the Honorable Division Bench of this Court in Aishwarya Thakur's case was under challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the writ petitions were kept pending awaiting adjudication in the matter by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. He submitted that at the time when the Civil Appeals were disposed of by the Hon’ble 11 2026:HHC:36862 Supreme Court of India, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was not apprised of the fact that some of the similarly situated persons had invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court and their petitions were pending adjudication and were in fact, awaiting the outcome of the proceedings pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He thus submitted that the petitioners herein are also entitled to the relief of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as they were before the Court and their matters were pending before this Court. 7. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was clear and categorical that the relief in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was confined to those candidates only who were before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was categorical that the benefit of the judgment shall not extend to any candidate who was not before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, or who had chosen not to pursue relief in the proceedings pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He submitted that the petitions are therefore liable to be rejected on this short count. 8. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and have also carefully gone through the pleadings and documents appended therewith as also the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 12 2026:HHC:36862 9. In terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the benefit of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court was not to extend to any candidate who was not before the Hon’ble Supreme Court or who had chosen not to pursue relief in the proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. This Court cannot read the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in any other manner. 10. However, fact of the matter still remains that the present petitioners were pursuing their remedy on the same cause and their writ petitions were pending adjudication before this Court and were not yet decided for the reason that the appeal preferred by the State against the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Aishwarya Thakur’s case was pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 11. A careful perusal of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court demonstrates one fact, that the factum of the writ petitions of similarly situated persons pending before this Court, was not brought in the notice of the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the State, who was aware of said fact. The writ petitioners before this Court had approached this Court before the pronouncement of the judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which judgment is dated 12th May 2026. Thus, it is not a case that the petitioners have approached the Court after the pronouncement of the judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 13 2026:HHC:36862 12. In terms of its judgment dated 12.05.2026,, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the benefit of its judgment shall not extend to any candidate who is not before this Court, i.e. Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thereafter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court went on to observe that the benefit of the judgment shall not extend to any candidate who has chosen not to pursue relief in these proceedings. The findings that have been returned by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India inter alia are binding upon this Court also under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. In the considered view of this Court, in the backdrop of the directions that have been issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, if this Court orders that appointment be offered to the petitioners, the same will amount to overreaching the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. On the other hand, dismissing the petitions of the petitioners despite the fact that they are not fence-sitters and their cases were already pending before this Court, awaiting the outcome of the adjudication in the matter by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, when the appeals were decided by Hon’ble Apex Court, would also amount to injustice to them. 13. Therefore, in these peculiar circumstances, as this Court is of the considered view that it was the onerous duty of the State to have had informed the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India about the pendency of similar matters before this Court, when the civil appeal 14 2026:HHC:36862 of the State was heard by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, this Court directs that the State Government shall file appropriate applications/proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, bringing all these facts in the notice of Hon'ble Supreme Court, so that Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case Hon’ble Court deems fit, may pass such order(s), as the Hon'ble Supreme Court deems fit in these peculiar facts and circumstances. This shall be done by the State within a period of one month from today. Simultaneously, the petitioners herein are also at liberty to approach Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of appropriate proceedings, seeking appropriate directions from the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. With these directions, the writ petitions stand disposed of, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 31 , 2026 (narender)