State Cannot Alter Nature of Appointment Post-Selection Process: Himachal Pradesh HC

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has delivered a decisive blow to executive arbitrariness, ruling that the State cannot unilaterally redesignate selected candidates as 'trainees' to deprive them of contractual benefits after the recruitment process has concluded. This judgment reinforces the 'rules of the game' doctrine, ensuring that administrative actions do not strip government employees of their vested rights through retrospective policy shifts.

A bench comprising Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma adjudicated upon a cluster of petitions challenging the State's decision to treat newly recruited Medical Officers as 'Job Trainees' instead of contractual employees. The Court examined whether the enactment of the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024 and subsequent notifications could override the terms of the original recruitment advertisement issued under the Himachal Pradesh Medical Civil Services, Medical Officers Class-I, (Gazetted) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2012.

Key Takeaways

Stability in Recruitment Standards

Once a selection process is initiated under specific rules, the State cannot alter the nature of appointment midstream or post-culmination to the detriment of selectees.

Judicial Protection of Service Benefits

The Court ensured that Medical Officers are entitled to Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA) and eligibility for higher education (PG/SS courses) despite the State's attempt to label them as trainees.

Primacy of Statutory Rules over Executive Instructions

Executive notifications or new schemes cannot override the recruitment and promotion rules framed under the proviso to Constitution of India.

Equality in Bargaining Power

The ruling addresses the 'coercive inequality' often faced by candidates who are forced to sign trainee agreements despite being eligible for regular or contractual positions.

Invalidity of the Government Employees Act 2024

The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Sections 3 and 8 of the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024. The Court noted that this statute had already been struck down in Devinder Kumar & Ors. vs State of H.P & Ors., a decision later affirmed by the Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Devinder Kumar & Others. Consequently, the Court held that any plea taken by the respondents on the basis of the 2024 Act must be rejected.

Court Observations and Directions

The Court observed that while the State has the discretion to choose between regular and contract appointments before the application deadline, it cannot invent a third category like 'trainee' after the merit list is published. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "It is more than settled that rule of the game cannot be changed midstream. Once process was initiated for appointment of Medical Officers in terms of the R&P Rules, either on regular basis or on contract basis, on culmination of the said process, selectee candidates cannot be offered appointment of the nature other than the nature of appointment notified/advertised."

The Court has following directions:

"(i) Petitioners shall be considered to have been appointed on contract basis in consonance with the R&P Rules framed by the State (Himachal Pradesh Medical Civil Services, Medical Officers (Class-I, Gazetted) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2012, Annexure P-1) with all consequential benefits attached to such appointment declared admissible to such contract employees from time to time by the State as well as Courts."

"(ii) Petitioners shall be entitled to be considered as eligible GDOs for availing the benefits of PG/SS Policy, 2025, as the case may be, and shall be entitled for all benefits admissible and permissible to other contract employees eligible under the said Policy."

Ratio

The State is bound by the recruitment rules and terms of the advertisement prevailing at the time of the selection process; it cannot retrospectively change the nature of service to the disadvantage of the candidates through executive instructions or new legislation once the selection process is complete. Furthermore, once a statute is declared unconstitutional by a competent court and upheld by the Supreme Court, all consequential actions based on that statute are null and void.

Background

In December 2024, the HP Public Service Commission advertised 200 posts for Medical Officers. While initially silent on the nature of appointment, a corrigendum was issued before the last date clarifying the posts were on a contract basis under the Himachal Pradesh Medical Civil Services, Medical Officers Class-I, (Gazetted) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2012. However, after the petitioners were declared successful in August 2025, the State attempted to engage them as 'Job Trainees' under the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024 and a new policy dated 19.07.2025. This redesignation stripped the petitioners of their status as General Duty Officers (GDOs), making them ineligible for Post-Graduation (PG) and Super-Specialty (SS) courses. The Court found this action to be an impermissible change to the 'rules of the game' and ordered the State to treat them as contractual appointees from their initial date of joining.

Case Details:
Case No.: CWP No.709 of 2026 a/w CWP Nos.8219 & 11701 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:HHC:42498
Case Title: Sahil Thakur & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Yudhvir Singh Thakur, Ms. Oshin Anand Chauhan and Mr. Rahul Singh Jagota; Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Additional Advocate General; Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Supriya Chaudhary, Advocate

Source: 2026 CaseBase(HP) 9418