IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.
Vijay Singh and others - Petitioners
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation - Respondent
CWP No.918 of 2025
Decided On : 30-10-2025
JUDGMENT :
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.
According to the petitioners, it was due to inaction on part of respondent-Corporation that they were not given appointment as Conductors (contract) from the waiting panel alongwith other incumbents at the relevant time. It was only after a writ petition preferred by them was allowed that the respondent- Corporation offered appointment to the petitioners. The petitioners now seek regularization from the date the other similarly situated incumbents were regularized. In essence, the petitioners have prayed for giving them deemed contractual appointment from the date given to the other similarly situated incumbents and consequent regularization of their service at par with these counterparts.
2. The Case
Following facts are not in dispute:-
2(i) On 28.12.2019, an advertisement was issued by the erstwhile H.P. Staff Selection Commission (HPSSC) inviting applications for filling up 568 posts of Conductors in the respondent- Transport Corporation with post code-762. The last date for submission of application form was 31.01.2020.
2(ii) Petitioners alongwith others applied for the post of Conductors and participated in the selection process. The selection process comprised of written test (Part I) and evaluation of documents (Part II).
2(iii) On 30.09.2021, HPSSC issued a notification declaring final result for 565 posts of Conductors (contract). While issuing final result, HPSSC also declared the waiting panel. Names of the petitioners figured in the waiting panel. Out of total 565 recommended candidates, 47 did not join their duties/pre-service training. A further notification was issued by HPSSC on 11.03.2022 (Annexure P-2) recommending names of next 47 candidates from the waiting panel for appointment to the posts of Conductors. Names of petitioners were not recommended in the list of 47 candidates as they figured below 47 candidates in the waiting panel. 39 out of 47 recommended candidates joined their duties/ pre- service training, 08 candidates did not join.
On 28.05.2022, HPSSC issued a notification recommending the names of next 08 candidates from the waiting panel for appointment as Conductors (contract). Names of petitioners being lower in rank in the waiting list panel were not recommended.
2(iv) In March, 2022 petitioner No.5 sought information from the respondent under the Right to Information Act (RTI) as to: (i) how many candidates had joined pursuant to the recommendations made by HPSSC on 18.11.2021; (ii) how many Conductors out of 565 appointed candidates left the job after joining; and iii) vacancies of Conductors existing as on date.
Vide Annexure P-3 dated 10.03.2022 respondents supplied the information that out of total candidates recommended on 18.11.2021, 47 candidates did not join their duties; 32 candidates left the job after joining and there were total 439 posts of Conductors lying vacant as on date of supply of the information under the RTI Act i.e. on 10.03.2022.
2(v) HPSSC did not resort to filling up 32 vacant posts of Conductors from waiting panel, instead on 08.07.2022 the respondent-Corporation requested HPSSC to initiate fresh process for filling up 360 vacant posts of Conductors including 32 posts which had remained vacant due to non-joining of selected/recommended candidates on contract basis. Accordingly, on 24.09.2022, HPSSC issued an advertisement inviting applications for filling up various posts in different departments including 360 posts of Conductors (contract) in respondent-corporation.
2(vi) At this stage, Laxmi Dutt and others versus H.R.T.C and another, CWP No.7103 of 2022 decided on 03.04.2024 was instituted. Some of the present petitioners were petitioners in Laxmi Dutt (supra). The writ petition was with the prayer for directing the respondent-Corporation to offer appointment to the petitioners against 32 vacant posts of Conductors on the ground that names of petitioners figured in the waiting panel and therefore, vacant posts were required to be filled from t
Waiting panel candidates have a right to appointment when posts are unfilled due to inaction of the employer, reinforcing equal treatment under the law.
Contractual employees appointed before service regulations permitted such mode entitled to deemed regularization after one year with retrospective consequential benefits on parity, arrears limited to....
Contractual employees may not claim regularization based on prolonged service or failed applications for higher posts, as employment must adhere to constitutional recruitment mandates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that contract employees, who have worked for a significant period and possess the necessary qualifications, are entitled to seek regularization of ....
Point of law: Service Law - Contractual employment - Regularization of Service - Having applied for appointment to various posts pursuant to a notification of 2019 and being unsuccessful (except one ....
The court emphasizes that regularization of temporary employees must adhere to principles of equality and fairness, ensuring parity in treatment for similarly situated employees.
Employees selected under the same process maintain seniority regardless of appointment delays, and delays not attributable to them cannot deprive them of benefits.
Contractual employees cannot claim regularization as a matter of right; their employment is project-based and temporary, governed by specific contractual terms.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.