Himachal Pradesh must treat selected medical officers as contract appointees and consider them for postgraduate-policy benefits despite the cutoff date

The State’s 2012 Recruitment and Promotion Rules for Medical Officers permitted recruitment either on a regular or contractual basis. An advertisement dated 4 December 2024 invited applications for Medical Officer posts; a corrigendum issued before the application deadline specified that the posts would be filled on contract basis.

The petitioners were selected, and the Public Service Commission recommended them for appointment in August 2025. Instead of contractual appointments, they were engaged as “trainee” Medical Officers under State directions and policies issued after enactment of the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024. Their appointment dates—8 September and 24 November 2025—fell after the 19 July 2025 cut-off in the State’s Post-Graduation and Super-Specialty Policy, 2025, affecting their eligibility for its benefits.

The petitioners challenged, among other matters, their trainee status and sought contractual appointment, eligibility as General Duty Officers (GDOs) under the PG/SS Policy, and Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA). During the proceedings, the State agreed that, if the petitioners were treated as contract appointees, they would be considered eligible under the PG/SS Policy notwithstanding the cut-off date.

1. Whether the petitioners, selected through a recruitment process advertised for contractual appointments, could be engaged as trainees rather than appointed on contract under the applicable Recruitment and Promotion Rules.

2. Whether the petitioners were eligible to be considered as GDOs for benefits under the PG/SS Policy, 2025, despite their appointment dates falling after its 19 July 2025 cut-off.

3. Whether the petitioners were entitled to NPA and other consequential benefits from the dates of their initial appointment.

The Himachal Pradesh Medical Civil Services, Medical Officers Class-I (Gazetted) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2012, framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, provided for recruitment by direct recruitment either on a regular or contractual basis.

The Court applied the service-law principle that the rules governing a selection cannot be changed midstream; a selected candidate cannot be offered an appointment of a different nature from that specified in the recruitment process.

It also relied on the prior decision in Devinder Kumar & Ors. v. State of H.P. & Ors., CWP No. 3361 of 2025, which had quashed the Employees Act, 2024 and declared consequential action based on it illegal; the Supreme Court dismissed the State’s SLP against that judgment.

Under clause 4.1 of the PG/SS Policy, 2025, contractual candidates appointed before 19 July 2025 were eligible to continue to avail the policy’s benefits.

The selection process was conducted under the 2012 Rules, and the corrigendum specifying contractual appointment was issued before the application deadline. The Court therefore treated it as a clarification of the recruitment terms, not a midstream change, and held that the petitioners could claim contractual appointments rather than trainee engagement.

The directions and scheme based on the quashed Employees Act could not support their trainee status.

The selection process had concluded before the PG/SS Policy was notified, and the State had expressly agreed that the petitioners would be considered as GDOs under that policy notwithstanding the cut-off date. The Court accordingly held that the cut-off would not prevent them from receiving the benefits available to eligible contract appointees.

NPA was allowed from the initial appointment date only if it was admissible and payable to similarly appointed Medical Officers.

It directed that the petitioners be considered appointed on contract in accordance with the 2012 Rules, with consequential benefits admissible to contract employees; that they be considered eligible GDOs for benefits under the PG/SS Policy, 2025, on the same terms as other eligible contract employees; and that they receive NPA from their initial appointment dates if admissible and payable to similarly situated Medical Officers.

The challenge to Sections 3 and 8 of the Employees Act, 2024 was allowed in light of the earlier judgment quashing the Act.

The petitioners reserved their right to pursue surviving grievances, including those in prayers C to G.