Regularisation claims by UPNL-outsourced employees stand rejected; the court upholds prior precedent that contractual or casual service through outsourcing does not create vested rights against regularly selected candidates. Affirms and follows existing law, binding on subordinate courts handling employment/service matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPSS/1219/2025 of PANKAJ PRASAD Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND |
| CNR | UKHC010111592025 |
| Date of Registration | 19-07-2025 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority within Uttarakhand; follows prior High Court rulings |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2130 of 2023 decision |
| Type of Law | Service Law / Employment Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether employees engaged through outsourcing agencies (like UPNL) in government and statutory bodies acquire a right to regularisation or continuation of service after regular selection process is completed. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that employees engaged through an outsourcing agency do not possess a direct employer-employee relationship with the State and cannot claim any right of regularisation or continuation once regular recruitment is conducted and select candidates are available. Reliance was placed on the precedent set by Writ Petition (S/S) 2130 of 2023, which clarified that no vested right of regularisation arises merely by virtue of contractual service, and interim arrangements cannot override regular selection. Claims challenging the advertisement for regular selection or seeking continuation beyond contractual terms were found unsustainable. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Court emphasized the lack of vested right of regularisation for outsourced employees, recognized the supremacy of regular selection as per rules, and distinguished between stopgap and vested appointments. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioners were engaged through UPNL (outsourcing agency) as Stenographers/Personal Assistants in the District Legal Services Authority, Nainital, on a contractual basis for around 5 years and 11 months. The posts held by petitioners were later notified for regular recruitment. After the conclusion of the regular selection process and recommendation of selected candidates, petitioners sought protection against removal and claimed a right to regularisation, citing previous court judgments. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Uttarakhand; authorities handling contractual/outsourced employment in the State |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, particularly in similar outsourcing/contractual regularisation contexts |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reinforces that merely serving as an outsourced (UPNL) or contractual employee does not create a vested right to regularisation or continuation against regularly selected candidates.
- Dismisses the notion that long tenure (even up to nearly 6 years) creates enforceable rights for regularisation absent prior vested/accrued rights.
- Holds that casual, contractual, or daily wage employees cannot claim preference or stay against direct appointees selected through regular, advertised processes.
- Relies on and reiterates ratio from prior binding judgment (WPSS 2130/2023) and relevant Supreme Court precedent.
- Lawyers representing contractual/outsourced employees must reassess the viability of regularisation claims post this judgment.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court identified that petitioners were appointed through an outsourcing arrangement by UPNL and not by direct recruitment from the State.
- Citing prior binding precedent (WPSS 2130/2023), the Court held there is no employer-employee relationship with the State, thus no claimed entitlement to regularisation or protection from removal after the completion of regular selection by statutory process.
- The Court noted that stopgap/contractual workers do not acquire a vested right simply due to completion of several years of service.
- Judgments relied upon by the petitioners (WP(PIL) 116/2018 and Narender Kumar Tiwari, 2018 (8) SCC 238) did not create a higher right for such contractual employees against lawful selection through notified recruitment.
- The logic followed was that contractual arrangements are only temporary, and once regular appointments are made, the interim arrangement must yield.
- The writ was dismissed accordingly, following the directions and reasoning from the earlier division bench decision.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought protection from removal and direction for regularisation after nearly 6 years of service through UPNL in the District Legal Services Authority.
- Cited prior High Court and Supreme Court judgment to claim parity with regularisation cases.
- Contended that as posts were being filled by regular recruitment, their service ought to be considered in line with prior judicial orders.
Respondent (State/UKSSSC)
- Argued that engagement was through a contractor (UPNL), hence no direct employer-employee relationship with the State exists.
- Submitted that contractual/casual employees cannot claim regularisation or preference over regularly selected candidates.
- Asserted the engagement was a stopgap arrangement; now that regular selection is complete, petitioners’ contracts cannot supersede the rights of regular selectees.
- Relied on the High Court’s previous judgment in WPSS 2130/2023 to substantiate the lack of a right to continue for contractual employees upon regular selection.
Factual Background
Petitioners were engaged as Stenographers/Personal Assistants through UPNL (an outsourcing agency) in the District Legal Services Authority at Nainital for approximately 5 years and 11 months. Their appointments were purely contractual and acted as a stopgap to sustain day-to-day operations. Subsequently, the posts held by petitioners were advertised for regular recruitment through the Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission. After completion of the legitimate selection process, the names of successful candidates were submitted for appointment, prompting petitioners to seek protection against removal and regularisation of their service through writ petitions.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment discusses the absence of statutory provisions creating a right to regularisation for employees appointed via outsourcing agencies such as UPNL.
- The court reaffirmed, following earlier decisions, that without a statutory mandate or prior vested rights, contractual appointees cannot be regularised, nor can they block the appointment of candidates selected through lawful recruitment.
- The relevant legal framework for regular public employment – including requirements for recruitment through competitive selection – is upheld.
- No act or rule providing for regularisation of UPNL-outsourced employees was found or discussed as applicable in favour of petitioners.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural directions or innovations are set by this judgment; the case is disposed of by following established precedent as decided in an earlier (2023) case.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – When existing law is affirmed.