Fixed-Term Appointments Made Through Due Process Are Not “Backdoor Entries”: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the regularisation policy of Fixed Tenure Appointees in Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited, holding that appointments made through a transparent and competitive process could not be characterised as “backdoor entries” merely because they were initially for a fixed term.

A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Romesh Verma: “For rigors adopted in the process for appointment of Fixed Tenure, similar to the rigors and criteria applicable for regular appointment, the appointment of Fixed Term Appointees at initial stage, cannot be termed as a back door entry and, therefore, regularization of such appointment cannot be termed as an act, defeating the provisions prescribed for regular appointment.”

The petition was filed by supervisory employees who challenged Corporate HR Circulars issued by Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited. These circulars introduced and subsequently modified a policy for regularisation of Fixed Tenure Appointees, allowing them to be absorbed in the executive cadre.

The petitioners contended that the regularisation policy was contrary to the Fixed Tenure Appointment Scheme, which stated Fixed Tenure Appointees would have no vested right to claim regularisation or permanent absorption.

They further submitted that the the regularisation policy violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and gave permanent character to contractual appointees without open competition which affected their promotional prospects.

The Court observed that Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited followed a structured recruitment hierarchy comprising both skilled and unskilled workmen, supervisors, and executives.

The Court further noted that the petitioners were appointed as per the procedure prescribed in Direct Recruitment Procedure Manual, formulated and adopted by the Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited. Therefore, all of them were appointed after undergoing prescribed recruitment process, as per rules for regular appointment.

However, the Court further remarked that the appointments of Fixed Tenure Appointees were made through due advertisement and a competitive process comparable to regular recruitment. It held that such appointments could not be termed “backdoor entries” merely because they were initially made on a fixed-term basis.

The Court then noted that grievance of the petitioners was personal and premature, majorly because they themselves had appreciated the regularisation policy in representations submitted to Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited.

Lastly, the Court noted that during pendency of writ petition in 2025 regular recruitment to the Executive cadre was conducted and even though the petitioners participated they did not qualify.

Thus, the Court concluded that the challenge to the regularisation policy was legally unsustainable.

Case Name: Yug Raj Thakur and Ors. v/s Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited and Ors.

Case No.: CWP No. 11021 of 2024

Date of Decision: 09.01.2026

For the Petitioners: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate, with

Mr. Shubham Sood, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No. 1.

Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Sunny Rawat, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 to 99.

Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocate, for respondents No. 100 to 134

Click Here To Read/Download Order