SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(MP) 677

High Court of Madhya Pradesh
S.A.Dharmadhikari, J.
SANDEEP KUMAR PATHAK & ORS. – APPELLANTS
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
W. P. No. 28416 of 2021
Decided On : 24-02-2022

Courts should refrain from interfering with the policy matters of the State and one set of contractual employees cannot be replaced by another.

Headnote:

Outsourcing - Challenge to order directing fresh selection for appointment - Article 226 - Writ Appeal No. 418/2017 - Writ Petition No. 22083/2012 - GFR 178 - Laxmi Prasad Dubey - State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Puneet Mohan Khare

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, appointed as Assistant Grade-III/Data Entry Operator through an outsourcing agency, challenged the order directing fresh selection for appointment on the same post. The respondents argued that the petitioners were never appointed by the State Government or its agency and thus had no right to stop outsourcing services.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners were appointed through an outsourcing agency and had no established right to stop the respondents from outsourcing services in the interest of economy and efficiency. The court also noted that the decision to outsource services is a policy matter of the State and should not be interfered with by the courts.

Issues: Challenge to order directing fresh selection for appointment, nature of relationship between petitioners and respondents, legality of outsourcing services

Ratio Decidendi: One set of contractual employees cannot be replaced by another, courts should refrain from interfering with the policy matters of the State

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed at the admission stage due to lack of merit.

ORDER : – By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the challenge has been made to the order dated 10-12-2021 (Annexure P-4) passed by the respondent No. 2; whereby it has been decided to outsource the services through the Outsourcing Agency and has also directed to conduct the fresh selection for appointment on the post of Assistant Grade-III/Data Entry Operator by conducting an open written examination.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of this case are that the respondent No. 2 had issued the directions dated 25-1-2018 by which the procedure for appointment of Assistant Grade-III/Data Entry Operator through the outsourcing agency is envisaged. The petitioners were initially appointed as Assistant Grade-III/Data Entry Operator in their respective schools after appointment on contractual basis through the Outsourcing Agency namely; World Class Services Limited. The petitioners were performing their duties honestly and sincerely and their services were extended from time to time. To the utter surprise of the petitioners, the respondent No. 2 issued the impugned order dated 10-12-2021; whereby the respondent No. 3 has been authorized to outsource the services by conducting fresh selection for appointment of Assistant Grade-III/Data Entry Operator.

3. The learned counsel for petitioners relied on the judgment delivered in Writ Appeal No. 418/2017, State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Puneet Mohan Khare to contend that in similar situation, the Division Bench had disposed of the Writ Appeals by modifying the order passed by the learned Single Judge as follows : –

“1. The appellants shall not engage another contractual employee including outsourcing the services of Trainers. 2. In case a Trainer in a particular Trade is not required at a particular Centre, the appellants shall avail the services of such Trainers in the other Skill Centers, subject to the consent of such Trainer to work in another center. 3. The services of the Trainer in the other Training Centers shall not be dispensed with unless the appellants find that services of the Trainer are not required in any of the Centres and its need shall not arise in the near future. 4. But if in future, any Trainer is required in a particular Trade after dispensing the service of a Trainer, the Appellants shall re-engage the Trainers, who were engaged at an earlier point of time.”

In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the existing employees, like the petitioners, cannot be replaced by another set of employees appointed through outsourcing agencies.

4. It is further submitted that in identical situations, the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court have entertained the writ petitions and passed the interim orders, therefore, the petitioners are also entitled for the same treatment.

5. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate opposed the prayer and submitted that the petitioners herein were never appointed by conducting a regular selection by the State Government. From the beginning itself, as per the appointment letters, it can be seen that they were appointed through outsourcing agency namely; World Class Services Limited, Indore. The Agency through which the petitioner was appointed, is not made a party in this writ petition. It is for the Government to change the mode of appointment by outsourcing the services as per requirement on contract basis. The aforesaid decision for outsourcing has been taken in the interest of economy and efficiency. Thus, this petition is filed merely on the basis of apprehension, as is evident from Annexure P-4 dated 10-12-2021; wherein all the District Education Officers throughout the Madhya Pradesh have been instructed to outsource certain services. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for petitioners in the case of Puneet Mohan Khare (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case inasmuch as the petitioners therein were employed on different posts such as Man

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top