Division Bench Remands Case to Single Judge for Fresh Consideration on Preference for Contractual Service
In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court addressed the contentious issue of granting weightage to contractual employees in recruitment processes. The case, involving Sudeep Shukla and 45 others, against the State of Uttar Pradesh, was decided by a Division Bench on April 10, 2026. The petitioners, who are employed as Optometrists on a contractual basis under the National Health Mission, sought preference based on their past services.
The Division Bench, presided over by Justice Rajeev Singh, reviewed the earlier order passed by a Single Judge which directed the state to consider the petitioners' candidature by granting them weightage for their contractual services. This order was challenged by the State Government in a special appeal, leading to the current decision.
The crux of the Division Bench's judgment lies in the lack of statutory provisions or explicit rules in the Assistant Optometrist Service Rules, 1993, for granting weightage to contractual employees. The Bench observed that the Single Judge's order lacked a discussion on the entitlement of the petitioners to such weightage, noting that preference or weightage must be underpinned by explicit rules or valid reasons.
Interestingly, the Bench referenced the judgment in the case of Seema Singh v. State of U.P., where preference, not weightage, was accorded to contractual employees in a different context. The petitioners' counsel argued for similar treatment, but the Bench emphasized that such claims need to be evaluated by the Single Judge first, as it was not adequately addressed in the original judgment.
In its order, the Division Bench set aside the Single Judge's judgment and remanded the case back for a fresh hearing. The Bench requested the Single Judge to expedite the hearing, given that the selection process for the appointment of optometrists was already underway and a select list had been forwarded to the state government.
The Bench clarified that while the issue of weightage required reconsideration, any age relaxation previously granted to the petitioners would remain unaffected by their order. Moreover, the court issued a directive to the state government not to issue any appointment letters until the next hearing, acknowledging that the petitioners were still employed in their contractual roles.
The case highlights the complexities involved in balancing contractual employment with permanent recruitment processes, particularly in the absence of clear statutory guidelines. As the legal proceedings continue, the judgment underscores the necessity for explicit provisions in service rules to address the rights and preferences of contractual employees in government recruitment.
Bottom Line:
Contractual employees cannot claim automatic weightage or preference in recruitment unless explicitly provided under the applicable rules. Previous contractual service may be considered only if supported by valid reasons or rules.
Statutory provision(s): Assistant Optometrist Service Rules, 1993
Sudeep Shukla v. State of U.P, (Allahabad)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc id # 2884154
