HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 10081 of 2025 Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed seeking a direction to opposite parties to permit petitioner to work and discharge duty on the post of Instructor and for payment of salary and other allowances each. 3. It has been submitted that petitioner has been engaged by the opposite parties on outsourcing basis on 29.01.2024 and although his appointment was valid for the period of three months w.e.f. 01.02.2024 but was renewed on satisfactory performance. It is submitted that subsequently opposite parties have issued a notification for new appointment without renewing petitioner's contract. It is submitted that the nature of work being conducted by petitioner is perennial and therefore, the opposite parties are acting arbitrarily by not permitting to petitioner to continue on the post of Instructor. 4. Learned State Counsel has been provided instructions dated 08.09.2025, a copy of which is taken on record and has adverted to the order dated 20.05.2025 whereby petitioner's services have been dispensed with on the ground of continued absence. 5. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shiv Prakash Dwivedi, Rudresh Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Mod. Sadav .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Deptt. Of Vocational Edu.And Skill Development) Lko. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) parties and perusal of material on record, it is admitted that petitioner has been engaged on service on outsourcing basis through the service provider being M/s Aman Associates. It is also evident from a perusal of paragraphs-5 and 6 of the writ petition that petitioner's contract has not been renewed. It is also evident from a perusal of order dated 20.05.2025 that his services have been returned to the service provider on account of continued absence. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner has has not been able to demonstrate any provision whereunder the petitioner would come within purview of a Government servant and opposite parties would be required to follow any statutory rules or regulations regarding dispensing with services of an outsourced employee. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner has raised special emphasis on the Government Order dated 26.11.2024 to submit that paragraph-32 thereof clearly adverts to the fact that current employees would be continued in service and such service shall not be disrupted due to outsourcing. 8. It is quite evident from a perusal of the aforesaid Government Order dated 26.11.2024, specifically paragraph-32 thereof that it provides that current employees would not be displaced on account of engagement of workers through outsourcing. Since petitioner has been engaged through outsourcing, it is not evident as to how petitioner would be covered by paragraph-32 of the aforesaid Government Order. Even otherwise the same is only the nature of a guideline and definitely would not confer any status of a substantively appointed Government employee upon petitioner. 9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, petitioner not having a visited right to continue on this post as an outsourced employee, this Court does not find any ground to grant indulgence. 10. The petition being devoid of merit is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own cost. September 9, 2025 Satish WRIA No. 10081 of 2025 2 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench