GULZAR PATHANIA vs STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT
SHIMLA
CWP No.1918 of 2023
Reserved on:-04.06.2026
th
Decided on 29 June, 2026
Uploaded on:-29.06.2026

Gulzar Pathania and others
…Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others
…Respondents
Coram
High Court of H.P.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
1
Whether approved for reporting? Yes
For the petitioners: Mr. Sumesh Raj, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocate
General, for respondent No.1.

Mr. D.S. Kainthla, Advocate, for
respondents No.2 and 3.

Mr. Shivom Vashishta, Advocate, for
respondent No.4.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral )



By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have,
inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-
“i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to
allot the particular stations of post of Resin/Timber
Watcher to the petitioners with immediate effect.

::: Downloaded on - 29/06/2026 17:02:15 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
ii) That the respondents No.1 to 3 may kindly be
directed to release funds to the respondent No.4 with
respect to salary of petitioners alongwith interest which
they are entitled pursuant to their joining with further
directions to continue releasing fund to respondent No.4
with respect to the salary of the petitioners.”

2. The case of the petitioners is that respondents No.1
to 3 took a decision to fill up 166 posts of Timber Watcher in a
meeting held on 15.09.2022. Thereafter, respondents No.1 and
2 entered into an agreement with respondent No.4 to provide
suitable persons against the said posts in the State. In the
process, undertaken by respondent No.4, the petitioners
participated and were recommended by respondent No.4, in
terms of copies of appointment letter, Annexure P-1, for
appointment against the post in issue. On the basis of the said
recommendation of appointment, which was made on the basis
of interviews held in the office of respondent No.4, in which, the
qualification and experience etc., of the petitioners was
assessed, the petitioners were directed to report in the office of
Divisional Manager, Forest Works Division Kullu, District Kullu,
::: Downloaded on - 29/06/2026 17:02:15 :::CIS

H.P. The petitioners appeared and submitted their joining
High Court of H.P.
report(s) before respondent No.3 between 24.09.2022 and
26.09.2022. Thereafter, the petitioners were directed to report
in the Work-shed of the respondent at Shamshi on 15.10.2022.
The petitioners duly reported in the said Work-shed on
15.10.2022. However, on the said date, they were informed that
as Model Code of Conduct stood imposed, therefore, they
would have to wait.
3. To cut the controversy short, as even thereafter, the
petitioners were not allowed to join against the post in issue,
against which, they stood appointment in terms of Annexure
P-1, they approached this Court for the relief mentioned
hereinabove.
4. The stand of respondents No.2 and 3 is that, in
terms of Annexure P-1, the petitioners were required to submit
attested copies of educational qualification certificates, medical
fitness certificate and character certificate, but, they failed to
submit these documents and besides this, the post of Timber
Watcher being field job, only those persons, who confirmed to
the laid down criteria were to be retained. It is also the stand of
::: Downloaded on - 29/06/2026 17:02:15 :::CIS

the said respondents that the petitioners did not visit the office
High Court of H.P.
of respondent concerned between 24.09.2022 to 26.09.2022
and they did not deposit the requisite documents within 7 days
in terms of the requirement.
5. In rejoinder, the petitioners have reiterated the
averments made in the petition and they have also reiterated
that they did submit their joining before respondent concerned,
which would be evident from the fact that there was a separate
register maintained therein, in which, the signatures of the
petitioners were obtained. The petitioners have reiterated that
they submitted their joining in the last week of September, 2022
and, therefore, Annexure R-1, appended with the reply cannot
be used against them. It is also the contention of the petitioners
that if any deficiency was found in the joining report of the
petitioners, then, respondent No.3 could have intimated them
about the said deficiency.
6. When this case was being heard earlier, on
22.07.2025, the following order was passed:-
“Mr. Vanish Thakur, Divisional Manager is present
in person and has shown Diary Dispatch Register.
Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits
that its contract as an outsource agency with
::: Downloaded on - 29/06/2026 17:02:15 :::CIS

respondents No.2 & 3 is coming to an end on
31.08.2025.
At the request of learned counsel for the parties,
list on 10.09.2025.”


7. On 10.09.2025, the following order was passed:-
High Court of H.P.
“Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits
that its case for extension of the agreement is pending
consideration before the competent authority.
In view of above, learned counsel for the
petitioners as also learned counsel appearing for the
respondents have jointly submit for deferring the
hearing of this case by four weeks.
List on 07.11.2025.”

8. Thereafter, on 07.11.2025, the following order was
passed:-
“Learned counsel for respondent No.4 informs
that the agreement with HPSFDCL has been now
extended w.e.f. 1st September 2025 to 31st August
2027.
List for consideration on 25.11.2025.”

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this
Court is of the considered view that in the facts of the present
case, the act of respondents No.1 to 3 of not permitting the
petitioners for appointment against the post in issue is not
sustainable in law. It has not been disputed before this Court
that the work of appointment of Timber Watcher was
outsourced by respondents No.1 to 3 to respondent No.4. It has
::: Downloaded on - 29/06/2026 17:02:15 :::CIS

also not been disputed before this Court that the Timber
High Court of H.P.
Watcher who were so appointed were recruited and
recommended by respondent No.4. This Court is of the
considered view that when the exercise of testing the eligibility
was to be undertaken by respondent No.4, then, the contention
of the Department that the petitioners were not fulfilling the
criteria for being engaged against the post in question, may be
on outsource basis, cannot be accepted on its face value. In
fact, the appointment letters, Annexure R-1, demonstrate that it
was held out to the petitioners therein that the petitioners stood
appointed against the post of Resin/Timber Watcher on
outsource basis till completion of work contract or termination
or cancelation of the work award to the respondent No.4. It was
further mentioned in this letter that the appointment of the
petitioners was on the basis of their qualification experience
and other eligibility criteria as well as on the basis of the
interviews held. The stand of the respondents that the
petitioners did not appear within 7 days in the office of
respondent No.3 does not satisfy this Court. The very fact that
the petitioners are agitating the issue before this Court is
::: Downloaded on - 29/06/2026 17:02:15 :::CIS

evident of the fact that they were serious about the job in issue.
High Court of H.P.
Once the petitioners were offered appointment against the post
of Resin/Timber Watcher by respondent No.4 i.e., the
outsource agency, to whom respondents No.1 to 3 had
outsourced the appointment of Timber Watcher etc.,
respondents No.1 to 3 were under obligation to honour the
appointment of the said persons. Incidentally, it has also not
been disputed before this Court that others, who were duly
recommended alongwith the petitioners, were offered
appointment against the post in issue, whereas, the petitioners
were discriminated.
10. Therefore, in the backdrop of the above
observations, as this Court is of the considered view that denial
of appointment to the petitioners on the strength of the
appointment letter dated 14.10.2022, (Annexure R-1) is bad in
law, this petition is allowed by directing respondents No.1 to 3
to forthwith permit the petitioners to join against the post in
issue w.e.f. 01.07.2026. The appointment shall be prospective
for all intent and purposes and this order has been passed by
this Court in light of the fact that it stands recorded in the order
::: Downloaded on - 29/06/2026 17:02:15 :::CIS

passed by this Court dated 07.11.2025 that the agreement
High Court of H.P.
between the Department and respondent No.4 stands extended
upto 31.08.2027.
11. The petition stands disposed of accordingly, so also
pending miscellaneous applications, if any.

(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
June 29, 2026
(Vinod)
::: Downloaded on - 29/06/2026 17:02:15 :::CIS