Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 2825 (UTT)

UPENDRA BANGWAL v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPSS/147/2026 · 2026-01-19

Alok Mahra

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:UHC:580 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS No.147 of 2026 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Gaurav Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Anil K. Bisht, Additional C.S.C., Mr. Narain Dutt, Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tiwari, Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel, Mr. Devesh Ghildiyal and Ms. Puja Banga, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Vishesh Srivastava, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for respondent nos.4. Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate for the caveator. 2. According to the petitioners, they have been working on contract basis as Pharmacists in Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Base Teaching Hospital, Srinagar, Pauri Garhwal, for over 14 years. Respondent no.4 issued an advertisement dated 19.10.2024 for filling 73 posts of Pharmacists in various Medical Colleges in the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioners challenged the said advertisement by filing WPSS No.2194 of 2024, which was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment & order dated 12.12.2025. The relevant extract of the said judgment reads as: “5. Petitioners are serving as Pharmacist in Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Base Teaching Hospital, Srinagar, Pauri Garhwal since last more than ten years. According to them, they were appointed against sanctioned vacant post, after due selection and there is no complaint or adverse material against them, therefore, after rendering long continuous satisfactory service, they have earned right to be considered for regularisation. 6. Since their claim for regularisation has not been considered, 2026:UHC:580 therefore, petitioners have approached this Court, seeking the following reliefs:- (i) Issue a writ, rule order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent to consider the absorption/regularisation of the petitioners as regular employee on the posts of Pharmacist in Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Base Teaching Hospital, Srinagar, Garhwal with all consequential benefits. (ii) Issue a writ, rule order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the advertisement dated 19.10.2024 issued by respondent no. 6 as far as it relates to the posts against which petitioners are working (Annexure No. 8) to this writ petition. 7. Learned State Counsel submits that State Government has now come-up with amendment in the Regularisation Rules, vide notification dated 05.12.2025, wherein it is provided that any one engaged on contract, daily wage, parttime, etc., for ten years on or before 04.12.2018 would be eligible for regularisation. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are serving continuously since 2011 and they have completed fourteen years of regular service, as Pharmacist, therefore, they cannot be left out from regularisation merely because they are not covered by Regularisation Rules. 9. This Court finds some substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners. After serving for nearly fourteen years, certainly petitioners have earned right to be considered for regularisation. 10. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with liberty to petitioners to make representation to Secretary, Medical Health, Uttarakhand for their regularisation. If petitioners make such representation, Secretary shall consider the claim of all eligible persons for regularisation, including that of the petitioners, by constituting a Committee. The Secretary concerned is further directed to consider setting apart certain number of vacancies on the post of Pharmacist in different Medical Colleges/Teaching Hospitals for regularisation of existing employees serving on contract. This Court hopes and expects that this exercise shall be completed within six months. For a period of six months or till decision is taken, whichever is earlier, engagement of the petitioners shall not be disturbed. This Court has not interfered with the ongoing selection process, which may continue unabated.” 3. Now, the petitioners have again filed the writ petition, seeking the following reliefs: “i. A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the advertisement dated 19-10-2024 (Annexure No.09to the Writ Petition) so far as it relates to the posts occupied by the Petitioners. ii. A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to allow the Petitioners to continue with their present posting and not to proceed any further with the selection pursuant to the advertisement dated 19-10-2024, against the posts occupied by the Petitioners.” 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that this writ petition is barred 2026:UHC:580 by principles of res judicata, inasmuch as, the prayers in the earlier writ petition as well as in the present writ petition are similar. 5. The first prayer in this writ petition is similar to the prayer no.(ii) of the earlier writ petition. The second prayer is that the respondents may permit the petitioners to discharge their duties, as they were discharging earlier. 6. Learned counsel for the State submits that the representations submitted by the petitioners, pursuant to order dated 12.12.2025, have not yet been decided and is under consideration and further that the result of successful candidates pursuant to advertisement dated 19.10.2024, has already been declared on 17.01.2026. He further submits that the time granted by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.12.2025 has not yet expired. 7. The Coordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 12.12.2025 have also directed that engagement of petitioners shall not be disturbed for a period of six months or till decision is taken, whichever is earlier. From the above facts, it is apparently clear that as on date, no cause of action exists for the prayers sought in the present writ petition. Furthermore, the writ petition is also barred by principles of res judicata. 8. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. (Alok Mahra, J.) Vacation Judge 19.01.2026 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2026.01.19 14:25:13 +05'30' 2026:UHC:580