IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (216)

Date of Decision:- 07.03.2025

1. LPA-592-2023 (O&M) Paramjeet Kaur and others ……Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ……Respondents

1. LPA-794-2023 (O&M)

Shikha Gupta and others ……Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ……Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN ****

Present: Ms. Malvi Aggarwal, Advocate for Mr. Raman Singla, Advocate for the appellants in LPA-592-2023.

Mr. Ravi Gakhar, Advocate with Mr. Anshu Rana, Advocate for the appellants in LPA-794-2023.

Mr. Rohit Ahuja, DAG, Punjab.

****

LISA GILL, J.

1. Both these appeals are taken up together for adjudication and decision, at request and with consent of learned counsel for the parties as said appeals arise out of a common order dated 20.03.2023, whereby, CWP-15086-2023 along-with three other writ petitions was dismissed.

2. LPA-592-2023 arises from order dated 20.03.2023 in CWP-19783-2021 and LPA-794-2023 arises from common order dated 20.03.2023 in CWP-15086-2023. Admittedly, appellant-writ petitioners were engaged as Medical Laboratory Technicians, who served the Government Medical College, Rajindra Hospital Patiala, through an outsourcing agency.

3. Prayer in the writ petition was for setting aside the relieving of writ petitioners from service. The State wished to recruit Medical Laboratory Technicians on a regular basis; upon period of contract of service of writ petitioners, through the outsourcing agency coming to an end, writ petitioners were relieved from service. This is so recorded by learned Single Bench while dismissing the writ petitions filed by present appellants and there is no dispute qua the same.

4. It is further observed in impugned order dated 20.03.2023, that appellant-writ petitioners were never appointed on regular basis and they continued to work on the basis of interim order (in one of the writ petitions), passed by this Court in the year 2013, therefore, there is no justification for debarring the Department from carrying out appointments on regular basis. Therefore, finding no ground to issue any directions to respondents to regularize services of the petitioners and that too particularly when they did not possess the minimum qualification as claimed by the official respondents with their earlier writ petitions seeking regularization being dismissed on 25.04.2014, writ petitions were dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants are unable to dispute the factual position as above of the appellants being appointed through an outsourcing agency. It is a settled position that in such a situation there is no privity of contract between the employees and the State. This issue is no longer res integra and is squarely covered by a decision of the Division Bench in Nishan Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2014(1) SCT 33, wherein, it has been clearly held that:-

“it was the service provider who entered into an agreement with the State agency to provide work force on certain terms and conditions. The service provider selected the candidates and supplied the same to the Government Department. A service provider is not an agency of the State to make recruitment against the civil posts. The acceptance of claim of the appellants shall amount to back door entry to public employment in total disregard to the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution”.

5.1 Reference can gainfully be made to decision dated 28.11.2018 in CWP No.29655 of 2018 titled Anmol Garg and another v. State of Punjab and others, which was upheld in LPA-1910-2018 with the following observations:-

“Learned Single Judge finding that the appellant was an employee of outsourcing agency which was having a license under the contract to supply manpower held there was no privity of contract between the appellant and the employer and she was not even a contractual employee. The principle being canvassed before us applies only in case there is a privity of contract between the