2026:UHC:2513-DB HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI SUBHASH UPADHYAY 8th April, 2026 Special Appeal No. 58 of 2026 Praveen Singh Rana ------Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand & others -----Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Abhijay Negi, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. Rajeev Sing Bisht, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, assisted by Mr. B.P.S. Mer, learned Standing Counsel for the State/ respondents no. 1 & 3. Mr. Rajendra Arya, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4. Mr. Shivam Bharadwaj, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ JUDGMENT: (per Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.) 1. The present intra court appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 20.02.2026, whereby Writ Petition (S/S) No. 496 of 2026, Praveen Singh Rana vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed. 2. In the writ petition, the petitioner had challenged an advertisement dated 03.12.2025 issued by the Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission for filling up different posts in various departments, one of them being the post of Research Assistant Officer in Uttarakhand Judicial and Legal 1 2026:UHC:2513-DB Academy (UJALA), Bhowali, District Nainital. The case of the petitioner was that he had worked in different capacities in different organizations on contractual basis through Uttarakhand Purva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. (UPNL) and, therefore, he was entitled for regularization of his services and the action of the respondents in advertising the post for filling it by direct recruitment was illegal. 3. Learned Single Judge has observed that the petitioner had worked only for two years at UJALA though he may have worked in different capacities in different organizations but that would not entitle him to seek regularization against the post advertised through the impugned advertisement. Consequently, learned Single Judge has declined to interfere in the matter. 4. It is not disputed before us that the petitioner had worked only for two years at UJALA. The work done by the petitioner in other organizations on contractual basis through UPNL would not be relevant for considering any claim for regularization on the post advertised. 5. We find no good ground to interfere with the order of learned Single Judge. In case, the petitioner 2 2026:UHC:2513-DB seeks any benefit of the services rendered by him through UPNL in different organizations, it would be open to the petitioner to make representation in this regard before the State Government so that the same is considered. 6. With the said observations, the appeal is dismissed. 7. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.) (SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 08.04.2026 Kaushal 3