HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 10161 of 2025 Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties 1 to 3. In view of order being passed, notices to opposite arty no.4 stand dispensed with. 2. Present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed challenging order dated 16.07.2025 dispensing with services of petitioners who were employed on outsourcing basis. Also under challenge is order dated 03.07.2025 which forms the basis of impugned order. 3. It has been submitted that although petitioners were employed on outsourcing basis but were in relation to Government Order dated 18.10.2022 pertaining to Mukhya Mantri Abhyuday Yojna. Learned counsel has drawn attention to para 4.4 to submit that the post of Course Coordinator was created in terms of aforesaid paragraph. He has also drawn attention to paragraph-11 of the order to submit that four posts of Course Coordinators were required to be made through recruitment on outsourcing basis and also indicates eligibility for appointment of such persons. Learned counsel has also drawn attention to fact that funds for the entire project also pertaining to payment of remuneration to such outsourced employees was to be borne by the Department itself. It has also been submitted that a perusal of impugned order will make it evident that petitioner's services had been dispensed with on stigmatic grounds, without affording any opportunity of hearing to them. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kshemendra Shukla, Jagriti Bardhan Rao, Sharad Tiwari, Vivek Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Prafull Mani Tripathi And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Social Welfare Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 4. Learned counsel has also cited judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas and others reported in (2003) 10 SCC 733 to submit that such a private body as the service provider would also come within substantial State Funding particularly with regard to the said post since emoluments are being paid by State Government itself. 5. Learned State Counsel has refuted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with submission that the impugned order in fact has been passed by service provider and not by any State entity and such service provider not coming within purview of Article 12 of the constitution of India, the writ petition is not maintainable. It is also submitted that nature of employment of petitioners remains as that of outsourced employees and would not come within the realm of Government employee. 6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is admitted that in terms of Government Order dated 18.10.2022, the post of Course Coordinator was required to be filled up through outsourcing. It is also evident that impugned order dispensing with petitioner's services has been passed by the service provider, which admittedly is a private organization. In the considered opinion of this Court, mere fact that entire burden of project including remuneration paid to petitioners as outsourced employee is being borne by State Government, would not bring the private service provider within purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India since it is not the case of petitioners that the entire funding of private organization is also met with by the State Government. It is also evident and admitted that petitioners have been employed on contract basis through outsourcing and would definitely not come within purview of Government Servants. As such, consequentially, the service Rules including Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 would also be inapplicable in the case of petitioners. 7. From aforesaid aspects, it is evident that the nature of employment of petitioner remains private and not under the Government. Petitioner has been unable to indicate any statutory provision or any contract that in WRIA No. 10161 of 2025 2 such circumstances, an opportunity of hearing is required to be provided to an outsourced employee even though the order of termination is stigmatic in nature. 8. In view of said facts and circumstances, the petition being devoid of merits is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs. September 8, 2025 kvg/- WRIA No. 10161 of 2025 3 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench