Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J.
CWJC No.8991 of 2022
(7.5.2025)
Amit Kumar & Ors. ... Petitioners
vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. ... Respondents
Service Law – Regularisation – Post of Executive Assistant – Petitioners have been working since 2013 – Their initial appointment was made for a period of one year but subsequently, their tenure of service was extended till attainment of age of 60 years or completion of project, whichever is earlier – They were granted other benefits of regular service like Casual Leave, Earn Leave, Maternity Leave, Paternity Leave and, Leave Without Pay – Notification no. 436 dated 26th February 2019 issued under signature of Additional Mission Director, Bihar Prashashanik Sudhar Mission, has enumerated valuable rights to petitioners akin to regular employees – Appointment of petitioners was made by a selection process conducted by Committee constituted by District Magistrate – As petitioners were discharging their duties in State-owned hospitals since 2013, they cannot now be obligated to appear in examination conducted by BELTRON – Outsourcing in government departments is legally permissible, but it is crucial to ensure compliance with Labour Laws and regulations – Government departments can outsource tasks and services, but they must ensure that outsourced employees are treated fairly and their rights are protected. (Paras 44, 45 and 55)
Service Law – Regularisation – Post of Executive Assistant – State Government is entitled to take policy decision that Data Entry Operators would be deputed by Government Departments through a service provider under outsourcing policy – However, said policy decision cannot be made effective retrospectively, directing contractual employees, who were discharging similar duties for a long period of time, to submit themselves to a selection process to be conducted by BELTRON with fresh applicants, without terminating their job on the ground of efficiency – A contractual employee, working under functionary of State can challenge executive instruction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, when his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 are violated – Impugned memo quashed and set aside – Petitioners are entitled to perform their duties as Executive Assistants on the basis of notification, contained in Memo No. 436, dated 26th February, 2019 till attainment of 60 years of age or till the end of scheme, whichever is earlier – District Magistrate directed to place service of petitioners in vacant posts of Executive Assistants – Petitioners are not entitled to receive back-wages/salary – Writ Petition allowed. (Paras 58, 59, 60, 63 and 64)
Bibek Chaudhuri, J. – The petitioners have invoked Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs: –
“i. For issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondents to place the petitioners on the vacant post of Executive Assistant in the District of Purnea.
ii. For issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondents to pay the salaries of the petitioners from the period of August, 2021 uptill now with all consequential benefits.
iii. For issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions in the nature of certiorari for setting aside letter contained in memo no. 956 dated 18.08.2021 by which the service of the petitioner has been returned to the Establishment, District Purnea due to paucity of fund.
iv. For issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions in the nature of certiorari for setting aside letter contained in Memo No. 1416 dated 23.12.2021 issued under the signature of District Magistrate, Purnea by which the list of the petitioners has been submitted to the BELTRON for taking appropriate action.
v. For a declaration that the office order contained in Memo No. 1347 dated 18.08.2021 issued by the Additional Mission Director, Bihar Prashashanik Sudhar Mission is not applicable to the petitioners.
vi. To hold and declare that the services of the petitioners are permanent in nature by virtue of notification contained in Memo No. 436 dated 26.02.2019 issued under the signature of Additional Mission Director, Bihar Prashashanik Sudhar Mission, Patna by which the services of the petitioners and others similarly situated persons have been enhanced till the sixty years of age or till lapse of scheme.
vii. To hold and declare that the petitioners have not been appointed for scheme basis rather the appointment of the petitioners are regular in nature. viii. For any other relief/s to which the petitioners may be found entitled to by this Hon’ble Court.”
2. On 6th of June, 2013, Bihar Prashashanik Sudhar Mission, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna (hereinafter referred as “BPSM” for short), issued a notification for preparation of a panel for the appointment of Executive Assistants on contract basis. Clause-1 of the said notification provided the minimum eligibility criteria for the candidates, which was matriculation and basic knowledge of computer operation system (MS Word, MS Excel, MS Power Point, etc.). The notification also stated that the said contractual appointment would initially be for one year. However, there was stipulation for extension of the period of appointment for such candidates. The procedure of selection was stated in Clause-4 of the said Notification, which stipulated that on the basis of applications filed in the district level, a committee under the Chairmanship of the District Magistrate would prepare a panel keeping in mind the rules/roster relating to reservation and the candidates would be appointed on the basis of seniority against vacant posts.
3. Accordingly, a panel was prepared by the Committee under the Chairmanship of the District Magistrate for the District of Purnea, vide Memo No. 2487, dated 18th of October, 2013. Thereafter, vide a Memo No. 8592, dated 23rd of October, 2013 read with Memo No. 9842, dated 10th of December, 2013, issued by the Secretary, Health-cum- Executive Director, State Health Committee, Bihar, Patna, the District Magistrate vide an order, dated 20th of November, 2013 directed that the Executive Assistant from the panel would be posted at State Hospitals in the District of Purnea on the basis of counselling of the empaneled candidates. Counselling was held on 14th of December, 2013, where 34 candidates from the panel appeared and they were appointed on contractual basis to work under the Distric
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a writ petition by an outsourced employee against a private entity is not maintainable.
Less than five years of service does not justify claims for regularization of contractual employment under relevant government rules.
Outsourced employees discharging duties and responsibilities for the government, of the government, and by the government are entitled to the benefits of contractual appointment and regularization as....
The court ruled that long-serving contractual employees cannot be denied regularization based solely on contractual labels, emphasizing fair treatment under constitutional principles.
The State must uphold fair employment practices, ensuring that longstanding contractual employees receive regularization if their roles are recurring and essential to the organization.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
