JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. By way of instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs: “i) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued for quashing the impugned order dated 20.02.2024 passed by the respondent-Corporation vide Annexure P-6. ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondent-Corporation to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Steno typist from the date when Shri Amit Sharma has been appointed and thereafter regularized on the post of Steno Typist alongwith Seniority, increments and all other consequential benefits and furthermore, the difference of the salary of the post of Steno Typist be ordered to be paid to the petitioner from due date alongwith interest @9% per annum till actual payment/realization.” 2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties are that petitioner herein came to be appointed as Steno Typist on 21.11.2007 on outsource basis. Respondent-Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (in short “HPPCL”), made requisition to the DOEACC Centre, Chandigarh Branch at Shimla, which is an autonomous body of the Department of Information Technology, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, Government of India to provide manpower, which in turn recommended the name of the petitioner for appointment as Steno Typist in the office of HPPCL vide appointment letter dated 21.11.2007 (Annexure P-1). Since 21.11.2007, petitioner had been serving in the office of HPPCL. After having served the department for considerable time, petitioner submitted his representation on 24.8.2023 (Annexure P-5), praying therein to regularize his services on the analogy of one Mr. Amit Sharma, who, though at the first instance, was appointed on outsource basis, but subsequently, was taken on contract pursuant to his having cleared examination conducted by the respondent-Corporation. Vide order dated 20.2.2024, afore representation having been filed by the petitioner came to be rejected vide Annexure P-6. In the afore background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings praying therein for reliefs as have been reproduced herein above. 3. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. In the afore background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings praying therein for reliefs as have been reproduced herein above. 3. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that though initial appointment of the petitioner against the post in question was on outsource basis but once it is not in dispute that he had been serving the Corporation diligently for more than eighteen years, his services are required to be regularized in terms of policy framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh from time to time and applicable to the Respondent-Corporation being a State Government undertaking. Mr. Bhardwaj, further argued that HPPCL cannot be permitted to exploit the employees for an indefinite period, especially when post qua which petitioner was given appointment on outsource basis is very much available. He stated that in similar facts and circumstances person namely Amit Sharma, whose initial selection was on outsource basis was subsequently regularized by the Corporation without advertising the post. 4. While referring to the judgment dated 30.12.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Jaggo v. Union of India and Ors . in Civil Appeal (arising out of SLP(C) No. 5580 of 2024 alongwith connected matter), Mr. Bhardwaj, learned Senior Counsel, contended that practice of resorting to outsourcing roles performed by the temporary employees has been deprecated by the Hon’ble Apex Court. He stated that practice of engaging employees on outsource basis not only perpetuates exploitation, but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bye-pass the obligation to offer regular employment. 5. To the contrary, Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation, supported the impugned action of respondent in as much as it proceeded to reject the representation filed by the petitioner for regularization. Mr. Chandel, argued that once it is not in dispute that initial appointment of the petitioner against the post in question was through outsourcing agency, there is no question, if any, of the regularization in terms of policy of regularization framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Mr. Chandel, further stated that till date, petitioner is continuing in the Corporation against the post in question, but on outsource basis. While disputing the claim of the petitioner that similarly situate person namely Amit Sharma, was regularized Mr. Mr. Chandel, further stated that till date, petitioner is continuing in the Corporation against the post in question, but on outsource basis. While disputing the claim of the petitioner that similarly situate person namely Amit Sharma, was regularized Mr. Chandel, stated that though above named person was initially appointed on outsource basis, but subsequently his services were taken over on contract pursuant to his having cleared examination conducted by the Corporation. He further stated that the post against which Mr. Amit Sharma, was appointed on contract basis was duly advertised. He stated that bare perusal of judgment passed in Jaggo (supra) clearly reveals that same is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case because in that case, petitioners were given initial appointment by the Water Commission i.e. a body of Government of India, however, in that case, subsequent action of the Water Commission to fill up the post on outsource basis was stayed. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through record. 7. It is not in dispute that petitioner herein was offered appointment as Steno Typist in the office of HPPCL in the month of November 2007, but not by respondent-HPPCL, rather by private agency i.e. DOEACC, to whom, HPPCL had given contract to supply the manpower. Bare perusal of appointment letter placed on record by the petitioner itself suggests that initial appointment against the post in question was not given by the respondent-HPPCL, rather same was pursuant to contract signed inter-se HPPCL and aforesaid private agency. Once there is nothing on record to suggest that initial appointment of the petitioner to the post in question was not made by the respondent-HPPCL, petitioner is estopped from claiming regularization in terms of policy of regularization framed by the government from time to time. Had petitioner been given initial appointment by the HPPCL, he would have been right in setting up claim for regularization in terms of policy of regularization framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which ultimately came to be adopted by the HPPCL. 8. Had petitioner been given initial appointment by the HPPCL, he would have been right in setting up claim for regularization in terms of policy of regularization framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which ultimately came to be adopted by the HPPCL. 8. Pleadings adduced on record by the parties to the lis clearly reveals that person namely Amit Sharma, with whom petitioner is claiming parity was though initially appointed on outsource basis, but subsequently, pursuant to advertisement issued by the HPPCL for the post in question on contract basis, he took written examination, wherein he was declared successful. Pursuant to his having cleared examination conducted by the HPPCL, Mr. Amit Sharma, was given appointment against the post in question on contract basis. After his having completed requisite number of years, he was regularized against the post in question. It is pertinent to take note of the fact that petitioner also appeared in the examination alongwith Mr. Amit Sharma, for the post of Stenographer, however he failed to clear the exam and as such, was not offered appointment, whereas Amit Sharma, was given appointment against the post of Stenographer on contract basis. Amit Sharma was regularized in terms of policy of regularization framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh against the post of Stenographer. Subsequently, after regularization of Amit Sharma, against the Post of Steno Typist, process was initiated to fill up the post of Personal Assistant/Law Officer by way of internal examination. Mr. Amit Sharma, also applied for the afore post and was duly selected. Though at this stage, Mr. Bhardwaj, vehemently argued that selection of the person namely Amit Sharma against the post of JAO (P&A) is dehors the rules because no advertisement was ever issued for the afore post, but this Court is not persuaded to accept the aforesaid submission of Mr. Bhardwaj, for the reason that once petitioner was not in consideration zone, rather failed in the examination, he is otherwise estopped from laying challenge to appointment of Amit Sharma, who as per record appears to have been selected against the post of JAO as per Recruitment & Promotion Rules governing the post in question. 9. Bhardwaj, for the reason that once petitioner was not in consideration zone, rather failed in the examination, he is otherwise estopped from laying challenge to appointment of Amit Sharma, who as per record appears to have been selected against the post of JAO as per Recruitment & Promotion Rules governing the post in question. 9. Having carefully perused judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jaggo (supra) this court finds no application of the same in the case at hand for the reason that appellants before the Hon’ble Apex Court were originally employed by the Water Commission on part time/ adhoc basis, however, subsequently they claimed regularization, which claim, was rejected on the ground that they were not engaged against the regular vacancies. Though for redressal of their grievance, petitioners, at the first instance, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, but OA having been filed by them was dismissed, as result of which, they were compelled to approach High Court of Delhi. Though appellants before the Hon’ble Apex Court urged the High Court to recognize their long and continuous service qua the nature of their work and lack of any back door/illegal entry, but yet such plea was not accepted. In the aforesaid background, appellants were compelled to knock the door of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid SLP. Hon’ble Apex Court taking note of the fact that appellants before it were given appointment may be on temporary or adhoc basis by the Water Commission itself and pursuant to their engagement, they had rendered valuable service to the department, set-aside termination orders with further direction to the respondents in that case to take services of the appellants back and regularize them. 10. True, it is that in afore case, Hon’ble Apex Court deprecated the practice of institutions of resorting to outsourcing roles performed by the temporary employees effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another, but at no point of time held the outsource employees entitled for regularization. While interpreting judgment passed in Uma Devi’s case, Hon’ble Apex Court observed that principles culled out in Uma Devi’ case are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. While interpreting judgment passed in Uma Devi’s case, Hon’ble Apex Court observed that principles culled out in Uma Devi’ case are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. In Uma Devi’s case, it has been held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged on duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure, but yet the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities 11. Since in the case at hand, initial appointment of the petitioner to the post, against which, he is still continuing, was not made by the respondent-HPPCL, rather he was permitted to work in the department against the post in question pursuant to agreement executed inter-se petitioner and DOEACC, he cannot be permitted to stake claim for regularization in terms of policy of regularization framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. For the reasons detailed herein above, petitioner is also estopped from claiming any parity with Amit Sharma, whose appointment prior to his regularization on contract basis, was made by the Corporation after his having cleared examination. 12. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also invited attention of this court to the judgment passed in Civil Appeal No. 8157 of 2024 titled Shripal and Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad but having perused the same, this Court finds no application of the same in the present facts and circumstances of the case and as such, same need not be taken note of. 13. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above, this Court finds no merit in the present petition, as such, same is dismissed.