The Uttarakhand High Court has disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning alleged irregular appointments in the Uttarakhand Assembly, observing that action has already been taken and responsible individuals have been identified.
The division bench comprising Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay clarified that the disposal of this PIL will not affect pending petitions filed by employees whose services were terminated. Those cases will continue to be heard independently.
The PIL was filed by Abhinav Thapar, who alleged that since the formation of Uttarakhand, several appointments were made in the Assembly without advertisement or due selection process, in violation of constitutional provisions. The petition sought the production of original recruitment records before the court, constitution of a Special Investigation Team headed by a judicial member, and recovery of salaries and allowances paid to irregular appointees from responsible officials as per the government order dated 6 February 2003.
During the hearing, an affidavit submitted before the court stated that between 2001 and 2021, a total of 396 ad hoc appointments were made. Of these, 166 employees were regularised in 2015, while the services of 227 employees were terminated on 23 September 2022.
The court noted that the respondents had conducted an inquiry, taken corrective action, and identified those responsible for the irregularities. In light of these developments, the bench held that no further directions were required in the PIL.
The court also observed that the appointments were made under the directions of the then Speakers of the Assembly, who held constitutional positions, with the consent of the then Chief Ministers, despite objections raised by the Assembly Secretariat. A committee had been constituted to examine the issue, and based on its report, the irregular appointments were cancelled.
Also Read This – High Court Seeks Reply from Government, BKTC in Alleged Temple Fund Misuse Case
Disposing of the petition, the High Court directed that the matter be placed on record and reiterated that the decision would have no bearing on the writ petitions filed by terminated employees, which remain pending before the court.
