2026:UHC:2763 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS 2072/2022 WPSS 2070/2022 WPSS 2068/2022 WPSS 191/2018 WPSS 192/2018 WPSS 193/2018 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Lalit Sharma, Deputy SG, with Mr. Manoj Kumar, Central Govt. Standing Counsel, for the respondent no. 1 to 4. (2) Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions is identical, therefore, these are being heard and decided together by this common judgment. However, for brevity, facts of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2072 of 2022 alone are being considered and discussed here. (3) Petitioner was engaged through outsourcing agency as Lower Division Clerk in CGHS Dispensary in Dehradun in March, 2013. He served continuously in that capacity till 18.10.2022. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that services of petitioner were arbitrarily terminated w.e.f. 19.10.2022, even though work and post was available. Thus feeling aggrieved by the termination order dated 18.10.2022 and consequential letter issued on 21.10.2022, petitioner filed the writ petition in 2022, in which an interim order was passed on 12.12.2022 providing that “if new hands are to be engaged by respondents no. 2 and 3, preference may be given to petitioner in view of his wide experience”. (4) Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the posts against which petitioners were engaged are still lying vacant and since petitioners have earned sufficiently long experience of serving against the post in question, therefore, they have preferential right of appointment (contractual/regular) 2026:UHC:2763 against the said post. It is further contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that one ad hoc or contract employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc or contract employee, which is a settled legal principle, therefore respondents cannot ignore the claim of the petitioner while making contractual appointment. (5) Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned Deputy SG appearing for the respondents, assures that if petitioners make representation for their reengagement on contract, then the competent authority shall look into their prayer and take decision, as per law. (6) Writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of with liberty to petitioners to make representation to the competent authority for their reengagement. If such representation is made within two weeks from today, decision thereupon shall be taken, as per law, within six weeks thereafter. Petitioners shall be at liberty to stake claim for pending dues, if any, and the competent authority shall look into that aspect while taking decision on petitioners’ representation. (7) Interim order dated 12.12.2022 shall continue to operate till decision is taken in the matter by the competent authority. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 17.4.2026 Pr PRABODH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3a eab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052 DF6FCA58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2026.04.18 10:25:50 +05'30' 2026:UHC:2763