HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 319 of 2025 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J. 1. By means of this appeal a challenge has been raised to a judgement and order dated 14.08.2025 passed in Writ-A No. 9017 of 2025 by which the writ petition of the petitioner has been dismissed. In the writ petition the appellant-petitioner had sought the following relief. "(i). A writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the Advertisement issued by the opposite party no. 4 as contained in Annexure no. 1 to this Writ Petition so far it concerns to the post of Psycho-Social Counsellor mentioned at the Serial No. 2 in the Advertisement. (ii) A writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opp. party nos. 2 to 4 to allow the petitioner to continue to work on the post of Psycho-Social Counsellor in One Stop Centre, District Amethi and to pay her honorarium and may further be pleased to direct them to pay arrears of honorarium from July, 2024 to 06.02.2025. (iii). Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem appropriate and proper in the circumstances and allow this Writ Petition with substantial costs, throughout." 2. Admittedly the appellant-petitioner was working under the official- opposite party as Psycho-Social Counsellor on outsourcing basis i.e. his engagement was through a service provider and he was not a regular Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Rakesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Smt. Kiran Singh .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Women Welfare And Child Development Deptt. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) employee of the Social Welfare Department. An advertisement was issued by the Social Welfare Department for engaging other persons on the basis of outsourcing which led to the filing of the above mentioned writ petition. The writ Court had dismissed it on the ground that he being an employee of the outsourcing agency which has decided to dispense with the services of the petitioner-appellant on the ground of the certificate being forged there cannot be any occasion for any mandamus or for that matter any direction to be issued to the official respondent of the Social Welfare Department to continue with the services of the petitioner. 3. We do not find any error whatsoever in the judgement of the writ Court. As regards the contention of the appellants counsel that the recital in the impugned order about the certificate of the petitioner being forged attaches a stigma to the petitioner that has prejudiced his future, We find that the said finding has been recorded by the appellants employer that is the service provider namely M/s Aryan Infotech Enterprises. As far as writ Court is concerned it has only dismissed it on the ground that the writ petition is not maintainable in the circumstances of false certificate in respect of an outsourced employee. This is how the judgement has to be read and understood. If the petitioner has any grievance against the outsourcing agency he can raise it separately unaffected by the judgement of the writ Court. 4. In view of submission made above, the Special Appeal is disposed of. September 18, 2025 Bhanu SPLA No. 319 of 2025 2 (Prashant Kumar,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench