The Uttarakhand High Court has pulled up the state government for failing to fill sanctioned posts across departments and directed the Chief Secretary to submit an affidavit with full details of all such vacancies.
Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, hearing a petition related to non-filling of sanctioned posts, issued the directive on January 9. The court expressed dismay at the state’s continued reliance on temporary, ad-hoc, and contractual appointments despite the existence of approved permanent posts.
Highlighting systemic lapses in the recruitment process, the Court remarked that several petitions have brought to light the government’s “failure to initiate a regular recruitment process,” even though a large number of positions remain vacant.
“Why is the government not filling the posts when they are sanctioned and available?” the bench asked, calling the situation a “serious concern.”
The petitioner argued that the government has been intentionally bypassing regular recruitment processes and instead filling posts through contractual and temporary engagements. Such actions were termed “exploitative, arbitrary, irrational” and in violation of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution. It was also contended that the practice went against the Directive Principles of State Policy under Part IV of the Constitution.
The petition warned that such an approach not only affects the fairness of the recruitment system but also hampers job opportunities for thousands of qualified youth.
The High Court noted that due to administrative inaction, many qualified candidates have been unable to secure regular jobs and often cross the age threshold for recruitment. This, the Court held, directly affects the livelihood prospects of deserving individuals.
It further flagged the use of contract, daily wage, and ad-hoc workers for sanctioned posts as a regressive and concerning trend.
In a significant direction, the Court instructed the Chief Secretary to compile complete details of all sanctioned and vacant posts across government departments. The affidavit must also explain why regular recruitment has not been initiated and why sanctioned posts are being filled through non-permanent means.
The Court also sought a specific response on why Category-IV posts have been declared a ‘dead cadre’, effectively preventing fresh recruitment in that group.
The matter has been listed for the next hearing on February 16, 2026. The court’s directions are expected to impact the state’s recruitment policy and bring much-needed clarity and accountability to the hiring practices in government offices.
