Paramjeet Kaur and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Both these appeals are taken u p together for adjudication an d decision, at request and with consent of learned counsel for the parties a s said appeals arise out of a common order dated 20.03.2023, whereby , CWP-1508 6 -2023 along-with three other w r it petitions was dismissed.

¶23

PARUL 2025.03.12 18:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶24

LPA-592-2 0 23 LPA-794-2 0 23

¶25

LPA-592-2023 arises from order dated 20.03.2023 i n CWP-1978 3 -2021 and LPA-794-2023 ari s es from common order date d 20.03.2023 in CWP-15086-2023. Admitt e dly, appellant-writ petitioner s were enga g ed as Medical Laboratory Technicians, who served th e Government Medical College, Rajindra Hospital Patiala, through a n outsourcing agency. 3. Prayer in the writ petition was for setting aside the relieving o f writ petiti o ners from service. The Sta t e wished to recruit Medica l Laboratory Technicians on a regular bas i s; upon period of contract o f service of w rit petitioners, through the outsourcing agency coming to a n end, writ petitioners were relieved from s ervice. This is so recorded b y learned Sin g le Bench while dismissing th e writ petitions filed by presen t appellants a nd there is no dispute qua the s a me. 4. It is further observed in im p ugned order dated 20.03.2023 , that appell a nt-writ petitioners were never appointed on regular basis an d they contin u ed to work on the basis of i n terim order (in one of the wri t petitions), p assed by this Court in the y e ar 2013, therefore, there is n o justificatio n for debarring the Department f rom carrying out appointment s on regular b asis. Therefore, finding no gr o und to issue any directions t o respondent s to regularize services of the pe t itioners and that too particularl y when they did not possess the minimum q ualification as claimed by th e official res p ondents with their earlier writ petitions seeking regularizatio n being dismissed on 25.04.2014, writ petitio n s were dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the appe l lants are unable to dispute th e factual pos i tion as above of the appella n ts being appointed through a n outsourcing agency. It is a settled position that in such a situation there i s

¶26

PARUL 2025.03.12 18:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶27

LPA-592-2 0 23 LPA-794-2 0 23

¶28

no privity of contract between the employe e s and the State. This issue is n o longer res i ntegra and is squarely covere d by a decision of the Divisio n Bench in Nishan Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2014(1) SCT 33 , wherein, it has been clearl y held that:-

¶29

“ it was the service provider w ho entered into an agreemen t with the State agency to prov i de work force on certain term s and conditions. The service p r ovider selected the candidate s and supplied the same to t h e Government Department. A service provider is not an agency of the State to mak e recruitment against the civil p o sts. The acceptance of claim o f the appellants shall amount to back door entry to publi c employment in total disregar d to the mandate of Articles 1 4 and 16 of the Constitution ”.

¶30

5.1 Reference can gainfully be m a de to decision dated 28.11.201 8 in CWP N o .29655 of 2018 titled Anmol Garg and another v. State of Punjab and others , which was upheld in LPA-1910-2018 with th e following o b servations:-

¶31

“ Learned Single Judge findi n g that the appellant was a n employee of outsourcing agency which was having a licens e under the contract to supply manpower held there was n o privity of contract between the appellant and the employer an d she was not even a contractual employee. The principle bein g canvassed before us applies o n ly in case there is a privity o f contract between the employee and the employer. In the case i n hand, the appellant was an e m ployee of the service provider. The benefit of the said princip l e is not liable to be extended t o her and, thus, we do not fi n d any illegality committed b y learned Single Judge in dismis s ing the writ petition.”

¶32

PARUL 2025.03.12 18:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶33

LPA-592-2 0 23 LPA-794-2 0 23

¶34

5.2 In similar circumstances, this C ourt in CWP No.11911 of 202 0 ( Joginder Singh v. State of Haryana and others ) rejected a similar claim . Similar wa s the fate of CWP No.19762 of 2018 titled Vikash v. The State

¶35

of Haryana .

¶36

No other argument has been a d dressed.

¶37

Keeping in view facts and c ircumstances as above, thes e appeals bei n g devoid of any merit are dism i ssed. Appellants, in case, of an y grievance a gainst the outsourcing agen c y are at liberty to avail th e remedy(ies ) as may be available to them un d er law.