DR SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2026:UHC:1627

Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

SL.
Date
No.

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
WPSS/619/2026

Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Prashant Khanna, Advocate for the
petitioner.
Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Petitioner was engaged as Research
Officer on contract for one year in Programme
Implementation Department of State
Government vide order dated 17.03.2025.
Annexure-1 to the writ petition indicates that
said engagement was made on the
recommendation of a duly constituted Selection
Committee headed by Secretary, Programme
Implementation Department.
3. Petitioner is aggrieved by subsequent
advertisement issued on 14.01.2026 for
contractual engagement as Research Officer in
Programme Implementation Department,
whereby applications are invited only from
retired Government officers/employees.
4. Petitioner contends that condition
mentioned in the impugned advertisement is
unjust and it has no nexus with the object sought
to be achieved.
5. It is further contended that petitioner was

engaged on contract for one year, therefore, in

2026:UHC:1627

the absence of any complaint regarding his work
and performance, his term was liable to be
extended and at any rate, he cannot be replaced
by another contractual employee. He thus
submits that the condition that only retired
government officers/servants would be eligible
for contractual engagement as Research Officer
is sustainable. Reliance is placed upon a
judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Manish Gupta and Another etc.
etc. Vs. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti and
others etc. etc. (Civil Appeal Nos. 3084-3088
of 2022).
6. Learned State Counsel per contra submits
that the condition imposed in the impugned
advertisement has a rationale, as State
Government wants persons who have wide
experience of serving under Government to be
engaged as Research Officer, as they would be
better equipped to monitor the progress of
various welfare/development programmes.
7. He further submits that petitioner was
engaged on contract only for one year and upon
expiry of one year, he has no vested right to
continue as Research Officer and there was no
assurance given that he shall be re-engaged
upon expiry of the term for which he was earlier
engaged.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the

2026:UHC:1627

parties, this Court is of the considered opinion
that condition mentioned in the impugned
advertisement is unsustainable in the eyes of
law. Since petitioner has acquired experience
after serving for one year as Research Officer,
therefore, he cannot be excluded altogether from
the zone of consideration. Right to be
considered for employment is a valuable right
which can be denied only for some valid reason.
The reason assigned for excluding the petitioner
does not appear to be valid.
9. In such view of the matter, the impugned
condition mentioned in the advertisement dated
14.01.2026 is liable to be set aside and is hereby
set aside.
10. Writ petition is allowed.

11. The competent authority is directed to

issue fresh advertisement, sans the impugned
condition, if selection process has already not
concluded.











(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
11.03.2026
Mahinder/















Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b08923c,
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA4BABA43
D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH
Date: 2026.03.12 19:07:59 +05'30'
MAHINDER SINGH

2026:UHC:1627