WPSB/19/2023
2023 Latest Caselaw 219 UK

                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                     COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                  WPSB No. 19 of 2023

                                  Shri Vipin Sanghi, C.J.
                                  Shri Alok Kumar Verma, J.

Mr. Dushyant Mainali, learned counsel for the petitioners.

Mr. Rajesh Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India/ respondent no.

Mr. Vikas Pande, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos. 2 to 4.

Issue notice.

Learned counsels appear and accept notice on behalf of respondents.

Counter affidavits be filed by the respondents within six weeks.

Rejoinder be filed before the next date. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention to the selection process of staff in the District Child Protection Unit (DCPU) under Mission Vatsalya Scheme of the Central Government, which, inter alia, provides that suitable and capable staff may be appointed within the scheme for the full period of mission of the Financial Year 2025-26, subject to annual performance review, and that scheme provides for hiring of contractual staff in State and in District cadres. The petitioners were appointed in different periods, commencing from the year 2016, on contractual basis as Legal-cum-Probation Officers.

The grievance of the petitioners is that by the impugned order dated 3rd January, 2023, respondents have proposed to discontinue the contractual appointment of the petitioners and to make appointment through an outsourcing

agency.

It is contended by the petitioners that this is not permissible in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Abdul Kadir & Anr. vs. Director General of Police, Assam & others, 2009 (6) SCC 611, which has been followed by the Supreme Court in its later judgement in Manish Gupta and Anr. vs. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti and others, (Civil Appeal Nos. 3084-3088 of 2022) decided on 21st April, 2022 and by the Bombay High Court in Mahesh and others vs. The State of Maharashtra, (Writ Petition No. 7798 of 2017, decided on 4th March, 2019).

In Mahesh and others (supra) in the case relating to very same Scheme, the Bombay High Court disapproved the replacement of the contractually appointed employees by outsourced employees.

In view of the aforesaid aspects, we direct that till the next date, the contractual employment of the petitioners shall not be disturbed.

We, however, make it clear that no equity is created in their favour by continuation of their contractual employment under order passed by us.

List the writ petition on 27th June, 2023.

(Alok Kumar Verma, J.) (Vipin Sanghi, C.J.) 12.01.2023 Kaushal/Priti