Back
2026 Supreme(UK) 180
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Deepak Kumar and others - Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others - Respondents
Writ Petition Service Single No. 2159 of 2024, Writ Petition Service Single No. 206 of 2026
Decided On : 18-02-2026
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sanpreet Singh Ajmani & Mr. Bhavya Pratap Singh Rautela, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, Standing Counsel, Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, Advocate, Mr. Gaurav Nagpal, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate, Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate
Outsourced contractual employees through agency lack master-servant relationship and vested right to regularization absent statute; regular vacancies must be filled via open recruitment without interference; successive undisclosed writs challenging process constitute abuse.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Contractual employment through outsourcing agency - Pharmacists engaged on contract via agency in dispensaries seeking regularization after over a decade of service and quashing advertisement for direct recruitment - No master-servant relationship as employer pays fixed amount to agency with no control over engagement; such employees cannot claim regularization benefits like direct casual employees, defeating purpose of distinct hiring modes ensuring transparency and openness to all eligible; no statutory scheme or rules conferring vested right; vacancies on sanctioned posts must be filled by regular process per recruitment rules; ad-hocism deprecated; no interference with ongoing selection absent flaws. (Paras 7, 8, 17)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Abuse of process - Second writ challenging subsequent notification for exam centres filed after failing interim against original advertisement, without disclosing earlier writ number or reliefs sought, suppressing material facts despite claim of no other petition for same cause - No cause of action as petitioners did not apply; ulterior motive to stall selection; mandatory disclosures not made. (Paras 13-16, 19)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners engaged through outsourcing as Pharmacists challenged advertisement notifying vacancies for regular recruitment and sought service regularization with benefits; after no interim success, filed second writ against follow-up notification without full disclosure of prior proceedings.
Findings of Court:
No entitlement to regularization; challenge to advertisement and subsequent notification unsustainable; second writ exemplifies abuse of process.
Issues: Whether outsourced contractual employees have right to regularization precluding regular recruitment; validity of challenging recruitment advertisement and subsequent process; propriety of second writ with incomplete disclosures.
Ratio Decidendi: Outsourced contract workers lack direct employment tie, no regularization right without statute; regular vacancies require open, transparent selection; cannot stall via interim or successive writs absent vested rights or flaws; full disclosure mandatory in subsequent petitions. Result : Both writ petitions dismissed; second with costs of Rs.50,000/- recoverable as land revenue arrears.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. outsourced pharmacists seek regularization of services (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. outsourced employees ineligible for regularization like direct casuals (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. second writ challenges exam notification after failed interim (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. non-disclosure of prior writ amounts to abuse (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. no vested right to regularization absent statutory scheme (Para 17) |
| 6. writs dismissed; costs imposed for process abuse (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT :
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these petitions, therefore, these petitions are clubbed together and decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity and convenience, facts of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2159 of 2024 alone are being considered and discussed.
2. Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2159 of 2024 is filed by eleven persons, who were engaged on contract through outsourcing agency, to perform duties of Pharmacist in dispensaries run by Employees State Insurance Scheme (hereinafter referred to as ‘ESIS’), within State of Uttarakhand.
3. The reliefs sought in this writ petition are as follows:-
“A. To issue writ, order or direction thereby directing the Respondents to regularize the services of the Petitioners on the posts they are serving with all consequential service benefits, forthwith.
B. To issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned advertisement dated 16.10.2024 issued by the respondent-state so far it relates to the posts on which the present petitioners are still serving as Pharmacist (Allopathy).”
4. According to the petitioners, they are serving on contract as Pharmacist in dispensaries run by ESIS for more than a decade and they are educationally qualified for regular appointment as Pharmacist, thus, they are entitled for regularisation against available vacancies, as such, the employer is not justified in initiating process for regular selection against vacancies available on the post of Pharmacist.
5. It is not in dispute that the employer (ESIS) notified vacancies on the post of Pharmacist to the State Government and based on the requisition sent by the State Government, Uttarakhand Medical Service Selection Board advertised the vacancies in newspapers, on 16.10.2024. Petitioners have challenged the advertisement dated 16.10.2024, issued by respondent no. 3 in this writ petition and they have also sought a direction to the employer to regularise their services on the post of Pharmacist.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand and others , reported as 2026 INSC 99, for contending that after rendering long continuous service, right of regularisation has accrued in favour of the petitioners, as such, the selection process initiated by the respondents for supplying available vacancies on the post of Pharmacist is interferable. Reliance was also placed by learned counsel for the petitioners on the judgments rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pawan Kumar and others v. Union of India and others , reported as 2026 INSC 156 and U.P. Junior High School Council Instructor Welfare Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others in SLP(C) No. 9459 of 2023.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Employees State Insurance Scheme relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Council, represented by its Commissioner, Nandyal Municipality, Kurnool District, A.P. v. K. Jayaram and others etc. etc. for contending that persons engaged on contract through outsourcing agency cannot claim same benefits, which are claimed by other directly appointed casual/temporary employees, or else, the basic concept of hiring persons through separate modes and in different capacity would lose its purpose and sanctity and everybody would be getting exactly the same benefit irrespective of the mo
