Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/458/2026 of SATPAL SINGH RANA Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 21 July 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 458 of 2026 21st July, 2026 Satpal Singh Rana -----Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others
UKHC010125822026
2026:UHC:6119-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY
WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 458 of 2026
21st July, 2026
Satpal Singh Rana
-----Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others
----Respondents
Presence:-
Mr. Vikas Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Amrendra Pratap Singh, learned Additional Advocate General with Mr. B.S.
Parihar, learned Additional CSC and Mr. M.S. Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.
JUDGMENT : (per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta C. J.)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The present writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to resume working on the post of Assistant Professor in State Institute of Hotel Management; to consider his case for regularization, and to decide the representation submitted by him in this regard.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor in the State Institute of Hotel Management Technology and Applied Institution Organization by appointment letter dated 10.04.2018 for academic session 2017-2018 on contractual basis. The appointment order specifically mentions that the appointment was for one academic session, i.e., 2017-2018 and would come to end at the end of the academic session. The case of the petitioner is that he was not given extension in view of the fact that he was named as an accused in a First Information
UKHC010125822026
2026:UHC:6119-DB Report, registered against him on 17.09.2020. His further case is that he has been acquitted in the said case, therefore, he is now entitled to be reengaged and his services being regularized.
3. The engagement of the petitioner, as noted above was, only for one academic year and had come to end upon the expiry of the academic year 2017-2018. There is no evidence on record that thereafter the petitioner was permitted to continue or his services was dispensed with on account of First Information Report being lodged against him. The contractual appointment made in the year, 2018, in no manner, entitles the petitioner to claim any right of being reinstated or his services being regularized. The claim is wholly mis-conceived and the writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
4. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C. J.)
(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 21.07.2026 KKS/PP