Rakesh Dangwal vs Director Youva Kalyan And Prantiya Rakshak Dal & Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

This appeal is preferred by the petitioner in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 313 of 2019, aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 15.02.2019, dismissing the Writ Petition.

The petitioner was deputed to work in the respondent-Organization, by the outsourcing agency which had engaged his services. On his being so deputed, the petitioner was appointed for the contractual period 2015-16. The petitioner is said to have been continued, by a subsequent order dated 26.04.2017, for the financial year 2017-18 also. However, his services were terminated on 31.03.2018 on completion of a total contract period of three years. The petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, questioning his termination, mainly on the ground that the respondents had violated the law declared by the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi & others, (2006) 4 SCC 1, and had appointed another employee on a contractual basis in his place.

In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge observed that the law declared by the Supreme Court in Uma Devi was that a temporary or adhoc employee could not be substituted and replaced by another such employee; his replacement, if at all, could only be made by a regular selected employee; the petitioner's very appointment dated 19.05.2015 showed the limited duration for which he was appointed; contractual employees are governed by the terms of contract, and they neither have any right nor a lien over the post; and there was no legal impediment in making future contractual appointment to the post of peon, in which the petitioner was initially appointed.

Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, learned Brief Holder appearing on behalf of the State, would submit that the petitioner's services were engaged by an outsourcing agency which had deputed him to work for a specified period in the respondent-Organization; on completion of the extended period of contract, his services were disengaged by the respondent; there existed no master-servant relationship between the respondent and the petitioner; and the law laid down, in Uma Devi, has therefore no application.

It has not been disputed before us that the petitioner's services were engaged through an outsourcing agency. Consequently, the petitioner was the employee of the outsourcing agency, and not that of the respondent-Organization. It is only because the outsourcing agency had deputed the petitioner to work with the respondent, was his services engaged on a contractual basis for a specified period. On completion of the contractual period, and as his services were no longer sought for by the respondent, it was for the outsourcing agency, which had engaged his services, to depute him to work in any other organization of its choice. That does not, however, confer any right on the petitioner to claim that he should be permitted to work in the very same organization to which he had been deputed by the outsourcing agency, or that the outsourcing agency should not depute any other person in his place.

While the learned Single Judge has refused to grant the relief on another ground, we are satisfied that, since the petitioner's services were engaged by an outsourcing agency, there existed no master-servant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to the relief sought for in the Writ Petition. Suffice it to make it clear that dismissal, of both the Writ Petition and this appeal, shall not preclude the outsourcing agency from deputing the petitioner to any other organization where his services can be suitably engaged.

Subject to the aforesaid observations, the appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.