IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Review Petition No.45 of 2016

& Review Petition No.46 of
2016.

.
Date of decision: 02.11.2018.

.P
1. Review Petition No.45 of 2016.

H
Aman Deep Pathania .…Petitioner.

Versus

of
Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court
and others
…..Respondents.
rt
For the Petitioner: Mr. B.C.Negi, Senior Advocate
ou
with Mr.Pranay Pratap Singh,
Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. K.D.Sood, Senior Advocate

with Mr. Shubham Sood,
C

Advocate, for respondent No.1.

None for proforma respondents

h

No.2 to 16.
ig

2. Review Petition No.46 of 2016.

Himanshu Thakur .…Petitioner.

H

Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and and others

…..Respondents.

For the Petitioner: Mr. B.C.Negi, Senior Advocate

with Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh,
Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate

General with Mr. Ajay Vaidya,

::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2019 11:08:44 :::HCHP

 2

Senior Additional Advocate

General and Mr.J.K.Verma,
Additional Advocate General,
for respondents No.1 and 2.

.
Mr. K.D.Sood, Senior Advocate

.P
with Mr. Shubham Sood,
Advocate, for respondent No.3.

None for proforma respondents

H
No.4 to 7.

Coram

of
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant, Chief Justice.
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1

rt No

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)

ou
Since common questions of law and facts arise in

these petitions, the same are taken up together for

C

consideration and are being disposed of by a common

h

judgment.
ig

2. The petitioners admittedly are the employees

appointed through out source basis and had claimed

H

regularization of their services in the department i.e. High Court

and in the alternate claimed preferential right of consideration

and sought necessary amendment in the rules by filing CWP No.

1026 of 2015, titled as ‘Sant Ram and others versus High Court

of Himachal Pradesh’ and CWP No. 745 of 2015, titled as

1
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes

::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2019 11:08:44 :::HCHP

 3

‘Himanshu Thakur and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh

and others’.

3. Both these petitions came to be dismissed vide

.
.P
detailed judgment passed by this Court on 06.05.2016.

However, the said judgment was assailed before the Hon’ble

H
Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 14348-

14349/2016 which was disposed of vide order dated 12.05.2016

of
which reads as follows:-

“UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

rt ORDER

Heard Ms. Bina Madhavan, learned counsel for the

ou
petitioners. She pointed out the Rules framed by the
High Courts of Calcutta, Tripura, Orissa & Assam,
provision has been made in the Rules themselves for
C

absorption of the existing System Officers and System

Assistants who were earlier recruited on contractual
h

basis. Though the learned counsel submitted that these

Rules were placed before the High Court, we do not find
ig

any indication or reference to the above said statutory

Rules in the impugned judgment.
H

We, therefore, feel that the petitioners should be

given an opportunity to specifically bring it to the notice
of the High Court and seek for parity and leave it for
the High Court to decide for grant of any relief or not. In
order to enable the petitioners to approach the High
Court by way of a review, we grant time till 20.5.2016.
Till such time, the status quo of the petitioners shall not
be disturbed. Thereafter, it is for the High Court to pass
appropriate orders as to their continuation or otherwise.

::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2019 11:08:44 :::HCHP

 4

Thereafter, it is open for the petitioners to workout

their remedy against the order passed by the High
Court.
With the above observations and directions, the

.
Special Leave Petitions stand disposed of.

.P
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.”

H
4. It is on the basis of the aforesaid order that the

of
petitioners have now sought review of the judgment of this

Court dated 06.05.2016.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties

rt
and have gone through the records of the case.
ou
6. At the outset, it is fairly stated by Shri B.C.Negi,

Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Pranay Pratap Singh,

C

Advocate, for the petitioners that the representation made by

the petitioners before the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the effect

h

that the rules framed by various High Courts had not been
ig

considered, is not factually correct, as this fact was duly

H

considered by this Court specifically in paragraphs No.45 and

46 of the impugned judgment.

7. However, Shri Negi would urge that while passing

the impugned judgment, the Court has not taken into

consideration the copy of the National Policy (for short ‘Policy’)

and Action Plan for implementation of information and

communication technology in the Indian Judiciary dated

::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2019 11:08:44 :::HCHP

 5

01.08.2005, wherein, it was clearly envisaged that the technical

manpower recruited for implementation of the aforesaid ‘policy’

would be absorbed in the regular cadre of the Courts for which

.
.P
the State Government in consultation with the High Court

would make appropriate provisions in the Recruitment and

H
Promotion Rules. However, the Recruitment and Promotion

Rules notified by this Court on 10.11.2014 clearly reflect the

of
absence of any provision qua absorption/regularization of

technical manpower
rt recruited for implementation of the

aforesaid ‘policy’. Whereas, in similar rules framed by various

ou
other High Courts, there exists a provision qua

absorption/regularization of technical manpower recruited for

C

implementation of the aforesaid ‘policy’.

8. The submission made by learned counsel for the

h

petitioners is wholly without merit for more than one reason.

ig

Firstly, the petitioners, who are working as System Officers and

System Assistants, in the State of Himachal Pradesh, had never

H

been appointed under the ‘policy’ (supra) and had in fact been

appointed by the society named DOEACC. How and in what

manner, the petitioners came to be appointed has already

been dealt with in paragraphs 4 to 6 of the judgment dated

06.05.2016 which reads thus:

::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2019 11:08:44 :::HCHP

 6

“4. The petitioners are working as System Officers

and System Assistants in the different Courts throughout
the State of Himachal Pradesh. They have sought
quashing of advertisement issued on 10.12.2014 calling

.
for appointment to the posts of Computer Programmer

.P
and Assistant Programmer and have further sought
modification of the service Rules for the posts of

H
Computer Programmer and Assistant Programmer
seeking incorporation of a provision therein for
absorption of the existing incumbents holding the posts

of
of System Officers and System Assistants in consonance
with the provisions made in the “National Policy and
Action Plan for Implementation of Information Technology
rt
in the Indian Judiciary prepared by E-Committee of the
ou
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

5. The facts, in brief, may be noticed. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court with a view to computerize the Indian
C

Judiciary, constituted E-Committee and on its

recommendation framed National Policy on 1.8.2005.
h

DOEACC (for short ‘Society’) was made the Nodal

Agency. As per the policy decision, cadre of Trouble
ig

Shooters(technical manpower) for different Courts was to

be created and in terms of the National Policy, posts
H

were to be created for the conversion of Courts into

E-Courts. The recommendation of the E-Committee was
accepted. On account of non-availability of Society in the
State of Himachal Pradesh, the Department of
Information Technology, vide communication dated
2.9.2008 empanelled M/s New Horizons India Ltd. as the
agency for providing technical manpower for the High
Court and District Courts.

::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2019 11:08:44 :::HCHP

 7

6. The Society issued advertisement to fill up 22

vacancies, pursuant to which petitioner No.3 Rohit Singh
was appointed as System Assistant on contract basis
vide appointment letter dated 27.9.2011. Thereafter, the

.
appointments were made against the posts which were

.P
created for the purposes of conversion of the Courts
through E-Courts in August, 2013. The National Institute

H
of Electronics and Information Technology (for short
‘Institute’) advertised three posts of System Officer and
one post of System Assistant in August, 2013, pursuant

of
to which, some of the other petitioners were selected by
the selection committee.”

9.
rt
That apart, the appointment of the petitioners
ou
admittedly was not made by the High Court or any of the

Subordinate Courts and even otherwise the conditions of their

C

appointments clearly envisaged cessation at the end of the

fixed tenure.
h

10. Apart from the above, in terms of the comprehensive

ig

guidelines that were framed on 06.06.2017, the petitioners

themselves had given undertakings to abide by these

H

guidelines, wherein, in para-7, it was clearly stipulated that the

selection was purely contractual in nature and would not

confer any right of permanent absorption.

11. More importantly, unlike other High Courts, where

the appointments were made under the ‘policy’, the petitioners

in the present case were appointed on out source basis and,

::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2019 11:08:44 :::HCHP

 8

therefore, in absence of any relationship of “employer-

employee” between the petitioners and the High Court,

obviously, the petitioners cannot claim any preferential right of

.
.P
appointment.

12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no error

H
apparent on the face of the records which may warrant any

interference by this Court. Accordingly, both these review

of
petitions are dismissed. Pending application, if any, also stands

disposed of. rt
(Surya Kant)
ou
Chief Justice

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan)

C

2nd November, 2018. Judge

(krt)
h
ig
H

::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2019 11:08:44 :::HCHP