YUDHVIR SINGH AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

2026:HHC:48728
High Court of H.P.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.1458 of 2024
Date of Decision: 04.11.2026
____________________________________________________________________
Yudhvir Singh and Another ……...Petitioners
Versus
The State of Himachal Pradesh and Others ……...Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yogesh Jaswal, Judge

Whether approved for reporting? Yes.

For the petitioners: Mr. Vinod Kumar Thakur and Mr.
Sumesh Raj, Advocates.

For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Singh Jaswal, Additional
Advocate General and Mr. Rajat
Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General,
for respondents No.1 & 2-State.

Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Senior Advocate,
with Ms. Shivani Priya and Ms. Supriya
Chaudhary, Advocates, for respondent
No.3.

Mr. Vijay Kumar Arora, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Hitansh Raj, Mr. Gaurav
Kumar, Ms. Avantika Bhandari and Ms.
Rashita Gaur, Advocates, for respondent
No.4.

Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate, for
respondents No.23, 25, 26, 28, 50 and
90.

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate, for
respondents No.5, 6, 8 to 18, 20, 21, 29
to 36, 38 to 40, 42 to 48,51, 52, 54 to 68,
70 to 74, 76 to 82, 86, 87, 89, 92 to 102,
104 and 106.

::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 13:21:04 :::CIS

2026:HHC:48728
-2-
High Court of H.P.
Mr. Onkar Jairath, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. Piyush Mehta, Mr. Anshul Jairath
and Ms. Neha Thakur, Advocates, for
respondent No.69.

Mr. Abhishek Balahia, Advocate, vice Mr.
Sudhir Bhatnagar, Advocate, for
respondent No.83.

Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, Advocate, for
respondents No.7, 41, 84, 45 and 91.

(Oral)
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of the present writ petition, the petitioners have,
inter alia , prayed for the following reliefs:
“i) That the policy dated 03.10.2015 be declared as null and void
and the respondents No.1 & 2 may kindly be directed to frame the
policy as per the directions contained in LPA No.107/2014 in its
true letter and spirit in accordance with Law.
ii) That all the consequential orders of appointment/
Regularization/ fixing of seniority as per policy dated 03.10.2015
be also declared as null and void.
iii) That the respondents may kindly be restrained from giving
further benefits to the incumbents regularized in pursuant to
notification dated 03.10.2015 Ann. P-3.”

2. As per petitioners, petitioner No.1 was appointed as a
Lecturer (Chemistry) on the recommendation of the Public Service
Commission on 04.02.2019 on contract basis. Similarly, petitioner
No.2 was appointed as a Lecturer (Civil Engineering) in Government
Polytechnic College, Kullu, through the Public Service Commission
on 30.11.2019 on contract basis. Petitioner No.1 was regularized
::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 13:21:04 :::CIS

2026:HHC:48728
-3-
High Court of H.P.
vide order dated 23.02.2022, whereas petitioner No.2 was
regularized vide order dated 22.04.2022.
3. Case of the petitioners is that before filing of this writ
petition, a seniority list was issued by the respondent-Department.
In the said seniority list, the petitioners have been placed below the
private respondents, and therefore, feeling aggrieved, they have
approached this Court, praying for the reliefs already enumerated
hereinabove.
4. The maintainability of the petition has been questioned
by the respondents on the ground that the petitioners do not have
any locus to file and maintain the present writ petition. It is also the
stand of the respondents that earlier challenges to the said Policy in
other legal proceedings have ended against the petitioners and
therefore also, the present petition is not maintainable.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
Additional Advocate General and learned counsels appearing for the
private respondents, we are of the considered view that the present
writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of lack of locus
standi itself.
6. The petitioners have challenged a Policy notified by the
State Government vide Notification dated 03.10.2015, copy whereof
is appended with the petition as Annexure P-3. In terms of this
Notification, the Government, as a one-time measure, decided to
::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 13:21:04 :::CIS

2026:HHC:48728
-4-
High Court of H.P.
take over the services of all the teaching and non-teaching
employees engaged on hourly or period/lecture basis through
Student Welfare Fund, Institute Management Committee and other
schemes, up to 31.07.2015, in Government Engineering Colleges,
Polytechnics, and Industrial Training Institutes of the Department
of Technical Education, Vocational and Industrial Training, on
contract basis, after completion of seven years or 9600 hours,
whichever was earlier. The taking over of the services of the
incumbents in terms of the aforesaid Notification was subject to the
fulfilment of the conditions mentioned therein.
7. The Court stands informed that pursuant to the
issuance of said Notification, incumbents, whose services were
entitled to be taken over, were initially engaged on contract basis
commencing from the year 2016 and the incumbents, who were
engaged on contract basis in the year 2016, were regularized from
the year 2019.
8. The petitioners herein were appointed on contract basis
in the year 2019 through Public Service Commission. According to
us, cause of action, if any, accrued in favour of the petitioners to
assail this particular Notification immediately when they were
appointed on contract basis in the year 2019.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that at the
time when the petitioners were appointed, because their
::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 13:21:04 :::CIS

2026:HHC:48728
-5-
High Court of H.P.
appointment was on contract basis and not on regular basis, they
did not have any locus to file and maintain the writ petition. This
right accrued in their favour only after (a) regularization of their
services; and (b) after the issuance of the seniority list, when they
came to know that certain persons, including the private
respondents, stood placed above them in the seniority list.
10. This submission of learned counsel for the petitioners
does not satisfy this Court. This is for the reason, that as observed
by us hereinabove, the Notification of taking over of the services of
the incumbents, who were eligible in terms thereof, was issued on
03.10.2015 and was in force as on the date when the petitioners
were appointed on contract basis. The effect thereof was there for
everyone to see, including the petitioners.

11. The Notification dated 03.10.2015 was limited to
Government Engineering Colleges, Polytechnics and Industrial
Training Institutes of the Department of Technical Education,
Vocational and Industrial Training. Meaning thereby, that this
Notification was applicable only with regard to the Institutes, whose
names were mentioned therein, and was not a general Policy of
taking over of incumbents engaged in various Departments by the
State, which otherwise is ordinarily issued.
12. The petitioners were well aware that Notification dated
03.10.2015 was issued as there were incumbents serving in the said
::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 13:21:04 :::CIS

2026:HHC:48728
-6-
High Court of H.P.
Departments, i.e., teaching and non-teaching, engaged on hourly or
period/lecture basis through Student Welfare Fund, Institute
Management Committee, and under other Schemes, who had
completed either 7 years of service or 9600 hours as on the date of
the issuance of aforesaid Notification up to 31.07.2015.

13. It could not be disputed before us on behalf of the
petitioners that immediately after the issuance of Notification dated
03.10.2015, incumbents, who were fulfilling the criteria mentioned
therein, were engaged on contract basis. The incumbents who were
so engaged on contract basis in the year 2016, were also regularized
in the year 2019. As the petitioners were engaged on contract basis
only in the year 2019, they ought to have been aware that all those
incumbents, who stood engaged on contract basis before they were
engaged on contract basis, would rank above them in seniority. Yet,
they did not challenge the aforesaid Notification.
14. Therefore, according to us, cause of action, if any, to
assail the Notification dated 03.10.2015, accrued to the petitioners
when they were engaged on contract basis, but for the reasons best
known to them, they did not assail the Notification in the year 2019
and have assailed the same by way of the present writ petition,
which was filed only in the year 2024.
15. Now, we will address the other contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioners that the cause of action accrued
::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 13:21:04 :::CIS

2026:HHC:48728
-7-
High Court of H.P.
thereafter in favour of the petitioners in the year 2022, when their
services were regularized. Though, we reiterate our finding returned
hereinabove that the cause of action initially accrued in favour of
the petitioners to assail the Notification in 2019, when they were
appointed on contract basis, but even if we have to consider the
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that even as on
the date of their regularization in 2022, the cause of action accrued
in their favour, then also, they did not assail the Notification
immediately thereafter, but filed the writ petition after two years,
i.e., in the year 2024. Why so? Nothing could be submitted on their
behalf in this regard.
16. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners
that the cause of action accrued only when the seniority lists were
issued in which the private respondents and other persons were
placed above the petitioners, as observed hereinabove also, does not
convince us. This is for the reason that anyone and everyone, who
was/were engaged on contract basis and thereafter regularized
before the petitioners were engaged on contract basis, obviously had
to be placed above them in the seniority list. The placement of said
incumbents and also of the petitioners in the seniority list was only
an outcome of what had actually happened in the year 2015,
followed by the engagement of incumbents on contract basis after
::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 13:21:04 :::CIS

2026:HHC:48728
-8-
High Court of H.P.
the Notification in question was issued, which was subsequently
followed by their regularization.
17. Obviously, as all the persons, who are placed above the
petitioners in the seniority list, were not only engaged on contract
basis in terms of the Notification (Annexure P-3) much before the
petitioners were engaged on contract basis, but their services were
also regularized before the services of the petitioners were
regularized, after their appointment on contract basis, therefore said
incumbents were to be reflected above them in the seniority list.

18. Their reflection, as such, in the seniority list over and
above the petitioners did not give rise to any fresh cause of action to
the petitioners. We reiterate that the cause of action, if any, accrued
in the year 2019, and the petitioners having failed to approach the
Court in the year 2019, have no subsisting cause of action or locus
standi to maintain the present writ petition, which is accordingly
liable to be dismissed.
19. We have purposely not entered into other issues raised
by the parties, including the fact that the petition is otherwise not
maintainable as, according to the respondents, the issue as to
whether the Notification under challenge is sustainable in law or not
is no more res integra .
::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 13:21:04 :::CIS

2026:HHC:48728
-9-
High Court of H.P.
20. Consequently, in view of the above discussions, present
petition is dismissed. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if
any, shall also stand disposed of.

(Ajay Mohan Goel),
Judge


(Yogesh Jaswal),
Judge
November 04, 2026
Rajeev Raturi
::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 13:21:04 :::CIS