2026:UHC:2928 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/684/2022 With WPSS/633/2022 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Ms. Prabha Naithani, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, Standing Counsel for the State. Mr. Rajendra Arya, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for the UPNL. 1. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in these petitions, therefore, these are being heard and decided together. However, for the sake of brevity and convenience, facts of Writ Petition (SS) No. 684 of 2022, alone are being considered and discussed. 2. Petitioners were engaged on contract through a private outsourcing agency in Department of Training and Employment for serving as Instructor in Government Industrial Training Institute on different dates. Their engagement, however, was discontinued in the year 2019, allegedly by an oral order. 3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, termination of services of the petitioner was challenged in a writ petition, which was dismissed and in Special Appeal filed by petitioner, Division Bench permitted the petitioners to make representation to the competent authority. The representation made pursuant to that order has been rejected by the impugned order dated 21.03.2022, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 4. Petitioners had requested for their re- 2026:UHC:2928 engagement on contract as before. The ground for rejection is that petitioners do not have any lien to hold the post. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Division Bench, while disposing of the Appeal, filed by petitioners, had directed the competent authority to examine the issue of parity with two other similar situate persons who were re-engaged after oral termination, namely Brij Pal and Bhuwneshwar Prasad. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the representation, petitioners had mentioned that aforesaid two persons are similarly situate but they were re-engaged but that aspect has been overlooked in the impugned order. 7. The submission made by petitioners’ counsel appears to be correct, as the impugned order is absolutely silent on that aspect. 8. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of by directing competent authority to revisit the question of parity of the petitioner with Brij Pal and Bhuwneshwar Prasad and take decision as per law, within twelve weeks from date of presentation of certified copy of this order. 9. The decision shall be taken by the competent authority, untrammelled by any observations made in the order impugned in these writ petitions. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 21.04.2026 Mahinder/ 2026:UHC:2928