aa
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled that Medical Officers selected through a recruitment process initiated under the applicable Recruitment and Promotion Rules cannot subsequently be engaged merely as “trainee” officers. The Court directed that the petitioners be treated as having been appointed on a contract basis, with all consequential benefits attached to such appointment.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma delivered the judgment on 1 October 2026 in Sahil Thakur & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., along with connected petitions Charvie Gupta & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. and Arunika Thakur v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. The judgment has been approved for reporting.
Background of the case
The dispute arose from the recruitment of Medical Officers (General Wing) in Himachal Pradesh. The State had requisitioned vacancies, following which the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission issued Advertisement No. 27/12-2024 dated 4 December 2024 for recruitment to 200 posts of Medical Officer (General Wing).
Before the last date for applications expired, a corrigendum dated 10 December 2024 clarified that the posts would be filled on a contract basis. The recruitment process was subsequently completed and the HPPSC published the list of successful candidates on 20 August 2025, with the petitioners among the selected candidates.
However, instead of being appointed as contractual Medical Officers, the petitioners were engaged as Job Trainee Medical Officers pursuant to subsequent State Government policies and notifications.
The petitioners challenged this arrangement before the High Court and also questioned the validity of the State’s recruitment framework and the policy under which they had been classified as trainees.
High Court considers earlier judgment striking down Employees Act
A significant aspect of the judgment was the Court’s reliance on its earlier decision in Devinder Kumar & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., wherein the Himachal Pradesh High Court had quashed the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024.
The Court noted that the earlier judgment dated 25 April 2026 had declared the legislation unconstitutional and quashed the Act along with consequential actions based upon it. The Supreme Court subsequently dismissed the State’s SLP, SLP(C) No. 24885 of 2026, on 29 July 2026.
Consequently, the High Court held that the State could not rely upon the quashed Employees Act, 2024 in defending the petitioners’ trainee appointments.
Recruitment rules were central to the Court’s decision
The Court examined the Himachal Pradesh Medical Civil Services, Medical Officers Class-I (Gazetted) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2012. Rule 10 provides for recruitment of Medical Officers through direct recruitment either on a regular basis or on a contract basis.
According to the Court, the recruitment process in the present case had ultimately been clarified to be for contractual appointments, and the selection process was completed by the HPPSC in August 2025.
The Bench emphasised the established principle that the “rule of the game cannot be changed midstream.” Once the recruitment process had culminated, the selected candidates could not be offered an appointment of a fundamentally different nature from the appointment contemplated by the recruitment process.
The Court observed that if the State intended to abandon the recruitment process and introduce a different system of appointment, it could have cancelled the existing selection process and initiated a fresh recruitment process under a valid policy. That course, however, was not followed.
Cut-off date for PG and Super-Specialty policy held inapplicable
The dispute also had an important consequence for the petitioners’ eligibility for postgraduate and super-specialty medical education.
The PG/SS Policy, 2025, notified on 15 October 2025, contained a cut-off date of 19 July 2025 for contractual appointees to avail the policy. The petitioners were appointed on 8 September 2025 and 24 November 2025 and, therefore, would ordinarily have fallen outside the cut-off.
The High Court, however, held that the subsequent policies and notifications could not be used to deprive the petitioners of the contractual status arising from the recruitment process.
The Court observed that the recruitment process had commenced in 2024 and was completed in August 2025, before the PG/SS Policy was notified on 15 October 2025. It held that the petitioners’ contractual appointment could not be defeated by the later cut-off date.
During the proceedings, the State also expressly agreed that if the petitioners were treated as contractual appointees, they would be considered as General Duty Officers (GDOs) under the PG/SS Policy, irrespective of the 19 July 2025 cut-off date.
Court grants contractual status and consequential benefits
Allowing the petitions, the Division Bench directed that the petitioners shall be considered to have been appointed on contract basis in accordance with the 2012 Recruitment and Promotion Rules.
The Court further directed that they would receive all consequential benefits admissible to contractual employees from time to time.
Importantly, the petitioners were also held entitled to be considered as eligible GDOs for availing benefits under the PG/SS Policy, 2025, on the same footing as other contractual employees eligible under the policy.
The Court additionally directed that the petitioners would be entitled to Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA) from the date of their initial appointment, subject to the allowance being otherwise admissible and payable to similarly situated Medical Officers, along with consequential benefits flowing from their contractual appointment.
Key takeaway
The judgment reinforces the principle that the nature of appointment flowing from a completed recruitment process cannot subsequently be altered to the disadvantage of selected candidates through executive instructions or policies introduced later. In the present case, the High Court found that the petitioners’ selection entitled them to contractual appointment under the applicable Recruitment and Promotion Rules rather than engagement as trainee officers.
The Court disposed of all three petitions in these terms while expressly preserving the petitioners’ right to pursue any surviving grievances, including the reliefs earlier contained in prayer clauses C to G.
Case Details:
| Case Title | Sahil Thakur & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. along with connected matters |
| Case Number | CWP No. 709 of 2026 along with connected matters |
| Court | Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla |
| Coram: | Hon’ble Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Hon’ble Justice Ranjan Sharma |
| Petitioner: | Sahil Thakuir and others |
| Counsel for the Petitioner: | Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Yudhvir Singh Thakur, Ms. Oshin Anand Chauhan and Mr. Rahul Singh Jagota, Advocates |