Jaideep Brar And Ors vs State Of Punjab

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-11466-2012 (O&M)

Dr. Jaideep Singh Brar & Ors. ... Petitioners

VS.

State of Punjab & Ors. ... Respondents


1. Judgment reserved on 20.08.2026
2. Judgment pronounced on 04.11.2026
3. Judgment uploaded on 06.11.2026
4. Whether operative or full judgment Full
5. Delay in pronouncement of full judgment and reasons, if any NA

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL


Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Varun Veer Chauhan,
Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sehar Navjeet Singh,
Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 19, 21 to 23, 39, 43, 48, 105,
116, 169, 174, 187, 193, 194, 196, 199, 200, 202-204, 207, 253-
256, 259, 261, 262, 289, 307, 327, 328, 330, 331, 333, 334, 336-
341, 347, 350, 361, 366-368, 370, 371, 373, 374, 376, 377, 380-
388, 391-393, 397-399, 401, 402, 404-418, 420-430, 432-440,
443, 445, 446, 448, 452-454, 457, 460, 461, 463, 464, 467, 469,
471, 472, 475, 476, 484, 489, 490, 492-494, 497-499,505, 510-
512, 514, 516-520, 547, 552, 573, 578, 589-606, 608-616, 618-
625, 652, 661, 692, 695-701, 704-711, 713, 716-718, 720-724,
726-732, 734, 736-738, 740-745, 747, 748, 752, 754, 759, 761-
764, 781, 784, 786, 794, 796, 827, 828, 830, 832, 853-857, 859-
870, 873, 875, 877-882 and 887.

Mr. R. Kartikeya, Advocate for respondent Nos.41, 59, 62, 82, 85,
86, 93, 94, 95, 97, 100, 101, 102, 104, 108, 119, 120, 125, 201,
449, 470, 473, 477, 481, 483, 491, 500, 503, 504 & 506.

Ms. Ritu Punj, Advocate
Ms. Chahat Panchal, Advocate and Mr. Vaibhav Garg, Advocate
for respondent Nos.211, 216, 217, 363, 365, 369, 372, 375, 389,
395, 486 and 487.

V VISHAL SHONKAR
2026.11.06 11:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-11466-2012 - 2 -




None for respondent Nos.342 and 344.
None for respondent Nos.356, 358.

None for respondent Nos.361 and 362.

Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for
Mr. Salil Bali, Advocate for respondent No.549.

Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate for respondent Nos.419, 703, 712,
714, 715, 719, 725, 733, 735, 746, 748-751, 753, 755-761, 763.

Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Advocate for Mr. Akshit Chaudhary, Advocate
for respondents No.130, 131, 133-136, 139, 140, 142, 144, 146-
162, 164, 166-168, 171, 173, 175-180, 182-186, 188-192, 208-
210, 215, 219, 220-223, 225, 227-231, 236-241, 243, 244, 247,
248, 252, 258, 260, 265, 268, 269, 271 to 274, 276-278, 332, 335,
346, 348, 349, 351-354, 357, 442, 444, 450, 455, 456, 458, 466,
474, 474,479, 485, 488, 501, 502, 507, 509, 513, 603, 617, 634,
636, 637,639, 640, 642, 646-650, 656-659, 664, 667, 672, 673,
675, 686,765, 766, 767, 768 770, 771-777, 779, 782, 783, 785,
787, 788,790-793, 795, 798, 800, 801, 805, 807-809, 811, 812,
814, 815,816, 818, 819, 820, 823, 825, 826, 829, 831, 835, 839,
840-842,846, 848 and 850.

Ms. Sunanina, Advocate for Mr. H.C. Arora, Advocate for
respondents No.20, 61, 64, 65, 87, 96, 124, 198, 214, 226, 292,
571, 572, 574, 583, 586, 587, 769, 780, 789, 799, 802, 803, 804,
806, 813, 816, 817, 821, 822, 833, 834, 836, 843, 845, 847, 849,
883, 884, 885 and 888.

Mr. J.S. Gill, Advocate for respondent Nos. 279, 280, 283, 285,
290, 293 to 297, 301 to 305, 309 to 315, 317 to 326, 579, 629, 630,
632, 635, 641, 644, 645, 653, 655, 662, 670, 674, 677, 680, 685,
687, 690 and 691.

Mr. Akshay Bhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rohit Nagpal, Advocate
and Mr. A.S. Talwar, Advocate for respondents No.24, 25, 26, 28,
29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36, 37, 41, 42, 35, 38, 40, 44, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56,
58, 67, 68, 74, 76, 79, 80, 84, 85, 87, 88, 90, 91, 96, 98, 99, 103,
106, 107, 109, 114, 118, 123, 127, 129, 288, 355, 358, 356, 359,
360, 362, 525, 527, 528, 529, 530, 531, 532, 533, 535, 536, 537,
538, 539, 540, 541, 542, 543, 544, 545, 546, 548, 554, 556, 557,
569, 561, 562, 563, 567.

Mr. Pankaj Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.299.

Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for respondent No.778.


V VISHAL SHONKAR
2026.11.06 11:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-11466-2012 - 3 -




Sandeep Moudgil, J.


(1). The petitioner has approached this Court under Articles 226/227
of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the decision dated 18.03.2011
(Annexure P5) whereby the private respondents, who had initially been
engaged as Medical Service Providers/Rural Medical Officers (RMOs) on
contractual basis, came to be appointed/regularized against the regular posts of
Rural Medical Officers under the Punjab Panchayati Raj Rural Medical
(Group-A) Service. A direction is sought to the respondents to re-advertise the
said posts so that the claim of all the eligible persons could be considered.
rd

(2). Pursuant to the 73 Constitutional Amendment and the Punjab
Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, the management of Rural Subsidiary Health Centres
was transferred to the Zila Parishads. As a consequence, 1186 Rural Subsidiary
Health Centres were handed over to the Zila Parishads vide order dated
08.12.2005. For manning these centres, doctors were thereafter engaged as
Medical Service Providers, subsequently designated as Rural Medical Officers,
on contractual basis on a fixed remuneration.

(3). Various Advertisements were issued during the period 2006 to
2012 by the Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab for filling
up various posts of doctors in Rural dispensaries. The vacancies were
publicised, merit was determined on the basis of the marks obtained in MBBS,
counselling was conducted for allotment, and the prescribed qualifications, age
and reservation conditions were followed. The private respondents were
selected through the said process who joined as contractual Rural Medical
Officers.
V VISHAL SHONKAR
2026.11.06 11:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-11466-2012 - 4 -





(4). Thereafter, on 18.03.2011 (Annexure P5) the Cabinet of Council
of Ministers consciously decided that a separate cadre be made under the
control of village health services for the medical/veterinary doctors so
appointed on contract basis and thereafter to appoint such doctors on regular
basis.

(5). Aggrieved by this action, the petitioners have filed the instant writ
petition.

(6). Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the aforesaid
selection was only for contractual employment. According to them, when the
Government subsequently decided to create regular posts and a regular cadre of
Rural Medical Officers in the year 2011, a fresh field of public employment
came into existence. It is their case that all eligible candidates, therefore, ought
to have been given an opportunity to compete for the regular posts through a
fresh advertisement and selection process and that direct induction of the
existing contractual employees into the regular cadre amounts to impermissible
regularization which is against the principles laid down by the Supreme Court
in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi , (2006) 4 SCC 1 .

(7). It is vehemently contended that the petitioners could not
participate in the original contractual recruitment as the advertisement
prescribed Punjab domicile as an eligibility condition, whereas the petitioners
were not domiciled in the State of Punjab. It is submitted that, therefore, their
non-participation in the said selection cannot be construed as a conscious
choice or waiver of their right to compete, as they were effectively precluded
from submitting their applications by the impugned domicile condition itself,
which is contrary to Article 16(2) and beyond the competence of the State
V VISHAL SHONKAR
2026.11.06 11:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-11466-2012 - 5 -




Government in view of Article 16(3) of the Constitution, which vests the power
to prescribe residence requirements only in Parliament. Reliance is placed upon
the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Abhishek Rishi v. State of Punjab ,
2013(3) RCR (Civil) 239 .

(8). It is further contended that the reference in the Government
decision to the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) cannot cure the constitutional
defect. According to the petitioners, the substance of the action and not the
nomenclature assigned to it has to be examined and the regular appointment of
contractual employees without a fresh open selection amounts to regularization
through the back door.

(9). Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents, on the
other hand, submits that the writ petition proceeds upon an incorrect
assumption that the private respondents were appointed without a competitive
process. They submit that the private respondents were selected pursuant to a
duly advertised process in the year 2006, on the basis of merit, after
considering eligible candidates. They were appointed to discharge the very
functions of Rural Medical Officers which were subsequently brought within a
regular statutory cadre.

(10). It is further contended that the Government, after considering the
position of the existing Rural Medical Officers, consciously took a Cabinet
decision dated 09.03.2011 to create a separate regular cadre and to bring within
it those doctors who had been recruited through a proper and transparent
process.

(11). Learned counsel submits that the decision was not based merely
upon length of contractual service. On the contrary, the Government prescribed
V VISHAL SHONKAR
2026.11.06 11:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-11466-2012 - 6 -




that the date of regular appointment would be the date of the appointment
order, that no benefit of the earlier contractual service would be available, that
seniority would be regulated separately, and that the applicable reservation and
pension provisions would be followed.

(12). It is further averred that the Cabinet decision was thus a conscious
policy decision for constitution of a regular RMO service and cannot be
equated with an ordinary case where persons appointed without a proper
selection seek regularization merely on the ground of long service. They further
submit that the Punjab Panchayati Raj Rural Medical (Group-A) Service Rules,
2011 thereafter provided a statutory framework for the regular RMO service.

(13). The respondents also contend that the petitioners cannot challenge
the original contractual selection after having chosen not to participate therein
and, in any event, cannot demonstrate any legally enforceable prejudice arising
from a selection in which they did not compete. It is submitted that the
petitioners cannot seek cancellation of the appointments of persons who had
participated in the selection process and had remained in service for several
years, merely by asserting that a fresh opportunity ought to have been given in
2011.

(14). Learned State counsel supported the action taken by the
Government and on the basis of the averments made in the reply, he reiterated
that the original selection was duly publicised and was made on merit, without
any allegation of fraud, manipulation or favouritism. He relied upon the
Cabinet decision dated 09.03.2011 and the subsequent statutory framework and
has maintained that the respondents were regularized only after the
Government had consciously considered the constitutional position and
V VISHAL SHONKAR
2026.11.06 11:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-11466-2012 - 7 -




directed that the principles laid down in Uma Devi (supra) be followed in letter
and spirit.

(15). It is then argued that the petitioners' challenge is belated and that
the private respondents have continued in service for many years and that the
petitioners did not acquire any right merely by claiming that they could have
competed for the posts had a fresh advertisement been issued.

(16). Heard learned counsel for the parties and the judgment was kept
reserved on 20.08.2026.

(17). From the pleadings of the parties, the primary issue that arises for
consideration is whether the decision of the Government dated 09.03.2011 and
the consequential regularization of the contractual appointee, namely, the
private respondents against the regular RMO cadre, without issuing a fresh
advertisement, is contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution or the

principles laid down in Uma Devi’s case (supra).

(18). Mere non-participation in an earlier selection cannot, by itself,
prevent a person from questioning a subsequent governmental action if such
subsequent action creates a new and independent opportunity of public
employment and the petitioner establishes infringement of his constitutional
right to equal opportunity. At the same time, a person who did not participate in
a selection cannot ordinarily seek its annulment merely on the basis of a
hypothetical possibility of being selected. The nature of the challenge,
therefore, has to be kept in view.

(19). In the present case, the petitioners are not merely challenging the
2006 contractual selection. Their principal challenge is to the subsequent action
of the Government in bringing the existing RMOs into the regular cadre.
V VISHAL SHONKAR
2026.11.06 11:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-11466-2012 - 8 -




Therefore, their challenge cannot be rejected solely on the ground that they had
not participated in the 2006 selection. The substantive legality of the 2011
action has consequently to be examined.

(20). There is no dispute that the Punjab Panchayati Raj Rural Medical
(Group-A) Service Rules, 2011 (in short, the 2011 Rules) created a regular
service comprising the posts specified therein and provided for recruitment
through a Zila Parishad Selection Committee, with appointment being made by
the Director on the recommendation of the Selection Committee and on the
basis of merit. The cadre comprises a substantial number of permanent posts.

(21). The existence of the regular cadre, however, does not by itself
answer the question against the private respondents. What is required to be
examined is the nature of the exercise undertaken by the Government in the
year 2011. The Court cannot proceed merely on the nomenclature of
“regularization”. The substance of the action, the manner in which the
respondents originally entered service, the Cabinet decision dated 09.03.2011
and the statutory framework subsequently created have all to be considered
together.

(22). The material placed on record shows that the private respondents
did not enter the RMO service by way of a clandestine or pick-and-choose
appointment. The State has specifically asserted that their initial engagement
followed an advertised process, that eligibility was prescribed, merit was
determined on the basis of MBBS marks and counselling was held for
allotment of posts. There is no material placed before this Court establishing
that the private respondents had secured their initial appointments through
de hors
fraud, favouritism or an appointment wholly the selection process.
V VISHAL SHONKAR
2026.11.06 11:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-11466-2012 - 9 -





(23). The position is further clarified by the Cabinet decision dated
09.03.2011 where the Government did not merely declare that the contractual
employees would become permanent by reason of their length of service. It
consciously decided to create a separate regular cadre of Rural Medical
Officers and to bring within that cadre the doctors who had been recruited
through a proper and transparent process. The decision also imposed safeguards
by providing, inter alia, that the date of appointment would be the date of the
appointment order and that no benefit of previous contractual service would be
given, and that seniority, reservation and pension would be governed in
accordance with the conditions specified therein. Significantly, the Government
directed that the principles laid down in Uma Devi (supra) be followed in letter
and spirit.

(24). The subsequent 2011 Rules gave statutory shape to the regular
RMO service. The fact that the Rules prescribed a regular recruitment
mechanism for the cadre cannot, by itself, mean that the earlier Government
decision to constitute the initial cadre from amongst the existing, merit-selected
RMOs stood rendered void. The Rules were framed after the Government had
already taken the decision concerning the existing incumbents and have to be
read in the context of the transition from the contractual RMO arrangement to
the regular RMO service.

(25). The distinction between the present case and an ordinary case of
regularization is material. In the ordinary case, a person enters service without
undergoing the constitutionally required process of selection and, merely
because he continues for a considerable period, seeks permanence. Such a
course is legally impermissible.
V VISHAL SHONKAR
2026.11.06 11:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-11466-2012 - 10 -





(26). However, in the instant case, the private respondents had entered
the RMO service pursuant to an advertised and merit-based selection process
and were thereafter brought into a regular cadre consciously created by the
Government for the very service in which they had been selected. The principle
in Uma Devi cannot be applied mechanically by treating every contractual
appointment as an illegal entry into public service. The constitutional concern
is with permitting temporary or contractual employment to become a substitute
for regular recruitment. Where the initial entry itself followed a process
affording eligible candidates an opportunity to compete and the Government
thereafter restructures that very service into a statutory regular cadre, the
question has to be examined on the totality of the circumstances.

(27). It is also significant that the Government did not confer
retrospective regular service benefits upon the private respondents. Their earlier
contractual service was not to count for the benefits specified in the Cabinet
decision, and their regular appointment was to operate prospectively. The
action was thus not merely a declaration that the entire period of contractual
service would stand converted into regular Government service.

(28). This Court is, therefore, unable to accept the petitioners'
proposition that the mere absence of a fresh advertisement in the year 2011 is,
by itself, sufficient to invalidate the respondents' appointments. The decisive
question is whether the earlier selection was a genuine and open selection for
the RMO service and whether the subsequent induction into the newly created
regular cadre was pursuant to the conscious Government decision and statutory
framework. On the material before this Court, both requirements stand
satisfied.
V VISHAL SHONKAR
2026.11.06 11:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-11466-2012 - 11 -





(29). The petitioners' reliance upon the absence of a fresh recruitment
process must, therefore, fail. The creation of the regular RMO cadre did not
necessarily create a wholly fresh and unrelated field of employment requiring
the Government to discard the earlier merit-based selection and commence the
entire exercise afresh. The initial constitution of a newly created service can,
depending upon the governing decision and rules, be made from amongst
persons who had already been validly selected for the very service.

(30). Besides that, there can be no quarrel with the proposition laid
down by the Full Bench of this Court in Abhishek Rishi (supra), that a
condition requiring domicile or residence in the State as a qualification for
public employment cannot be prescribed by the State Government, the power
under Article 16(3) of the Constitution being vested in Parliament. However,
this court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the petitioners themselves did not
challenge the domicile condition at the stage when the contractual posts of
Rural Medical Officers were advertised from the year 2006. If, as is now
sought to be contended, the petitioners were otherwise interested in seeking
appointment against the said posts and the requirement of Punjab domicile
constituted an impediment in their way, nothing prevented them from
questioning the legality of such condition at the relevant point of time and
seeking consideration of their candidature without insisting upon such domicile
requirement. No such challenge was brought at that stage and the petitioners,
therefore, allowed the process of contractual recruitment to proceed and the
selected candidates to enter service.

(31). The present challenge has arisen only after the Government took a
subsequent decision in the year 2011 to constitute a regular RMO cadre and to
V VISHAL SHONKAR
2026.11.06 11:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-11466-2012 - 12 -




induct the existing contractual RMOs into the said cadre. Thus, what is sought
to be projected now as a continuing consequence of an unconstitutional
domicile condition was not pursued as a grievance when the condition actually
operated and when the contractual recruitment was undertaken. The subsequent
regularisation of the private respondents appears to have brought into focus, for
the first time, the alleged prejudice which the petitioners claim to have suffered
on account of their inability to participate in the original selection.

(32). This Court is not oblivious to the fact that an unconstitutional
condition does not become constitutionally valid merely because it was not
challenged immediately. At the same time, the Court is required to examine the
nature of the relief actually sought and the stage at which the challenge is
brought. The petitioners are not seeking merely a declaration regarding the
invalidity of the domicile condition. They seek, in substance, to use that
declaration as a basis for unsettling appointments of persons who were selected
pursuant to the 2006 process, served thereafter, and were subsequently inducted
into the regular RMO cadre pursuant to the Government decision of 2011.

(33). More importantly, the challenge to the domicile condition would
acquire operative significance only if the subsequent action of the Government
in inducting the existing contractual RMOs into the regular cadre were first
held to amount to a fresh recruitment to regular public posts, thereby requiring
an independent opportunity to all eligible candidates. Having already held that
the induction of the private respondents into the regular RMO cadre pursuant to
the conscious Government decision cannot be rendered illegal merely on
account of absence of a second advertisement, the domicile condition
prescribed at the stage of the original contractual recruitment cannot now be
V VISHAL SHONKAR
2026.11.06 11:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-11466-2012 - 13 -




employed to reopen their settled appointments after such a long period. The
declaration in Abhishek Rishi’s case (supra) thus does not, in the facts of the
present case, furnish an independent basis for disturbing the appointments of
the private respondents.

(34). For the reasons recorded above, this Court finds no sufficient
ground to hold that the appointment/regularization of the private respondents
pursuant to the Government decision dated 09.03.2011 and their subsequent
placement in the regular RMO cadre is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution or contrary to law. The contention that a fresh advertisement was
an indispensable pre-condition for their induction into the regular cadre is, in
the facts of the present case, rejected.

(35). The instant petition is hereby dismissed.

(36). Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

04.11.2026
(Sandeep Moudgil)
V.Vishal
Judge
Yes/No
1. Whether speaking/reasoned? :
2. Whether reportable? : Yes/No

V VISHAL SHONKAR
2026.11.06 11:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document