HC: No Writ Petition would lie against the Outsourcing Agency as it is not an Authority in terms of A. 12 of the Constitution

 

The single judge bench of Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Satish Kumar and others V. State of Haryana and Others held that since an outsourcing company is not an authority under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution, no writ petition would be valid against it.

BRIEF FACTS

The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioners have appealed the decision that denied their request to be added to the payroll of the Municipal Committee.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the petitioners were engaged as safai karamcharis on a contractual basis with the respondent and their contract of service had been discontinued without providing any reason. Even, though the legal notice had been served to the respondents but their claim had been rejected while passing the impugned order.

COURT’S OBSERVATION 

The court stated that the petitioners were appointed through an outsourcing agency and it is a well-settled law that no writ petition would lie against an outsourcing agency, insofar as it is not an authority in terms of article 12 of the constitution of India. Further, the hon’ble court relied on the judgment titled ‘Nishan Singh and ors Versus state of Punjab and Ors’ in which it was held that

“The service provider who has selected the candidates for work in the government department is not an agency of the State. The appellants therein were neither selected under any service rules applicable to regular employees of the State of Punjab nor did they apply under any advertisement for their appointment as contractual or regular employees of the state. It was further held that the acceptance of the claim of the appellants therein for the continuation of services would amount to a back door entry to public employment in total disregard to the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.”

The hon’ble court also relied on the judgments titled, ‘Anmol Garg and another versus State of Punjab and others,’ ‘'Vikas versus The State of Haryana and others,’ ‘Kailash Chand and others versus Urban Local Bodies Department, Haryana, and others,’ and ‘'Naresh Kumar and others versus Haryana State Warehousing Corporation and others.’ At last, the court dismissed the petition by stating that the present petition didn’t find any merit especially when the petitioners were employed through an outsourcing agency and were also being paid salary through the outsourcing agency.

CASE NAME- Satish Kumar and others V. State of Haryana and Others

CITATION- CWP-17342-2022

CORUM- Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal

DATED- 16.08.2022

Read Judgment ;

 

Social media is bold.

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!  

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure