HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 12189 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned state counsel for opposite parties 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 and Mr. Mohit Chandra, advocate, holding brief on behalf of Mr. Puneet Chandra, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2. In view of order being passed, notice to opposite party No. 7 stands dispensed with. 2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 26th September 2018 passed by outsourcing agency being opposite party No. 7, Messrs Prashant Construction Company terminating her service. Further prayer has been made seeking a direction to the concerned authority to consider petitioner's case for engagement on the post of Block Programme Manager in pursuance of circular dated 26th December 2018. 3. Learned counsel for opposite parties at the very outset has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this petition in view of the fact that impugned order has been passed by a private company which does not come within purview of Article 12 of Constitution of India. It is also submitted that petition has been filed belatedly after almost seven years without any cogent explanation for such delay. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner in response thereto submits that earlier petitioner had filed writ A No. 11458 (S/S) of 2018 which was disposed of vide order dated 20th April, 2018 directing the concerned authority to Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Amar Nath Dubey, Ankit Dubey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Puneet Chandra Rashmi Devi .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Medical Helath And Family Welfare Lko. And 6 Others .....Respondent(s) consider grievance of petitioner. It is submitted that despite such orders having been passed, no decision till date has been taken. 5. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of the material on record, it is evident that petitioner has sought to challenge order of termination dated 26th September 2019 passed by a private company. Learned counsel for petitioner has unable to satisfy this court that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be maintainable against orders passed by a private company which admittedly does not come within purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. At the same time, it is noticed that this court earlier vide order dated 2nd May 2023 passed in writ petition No. 1548 (S/S) of 2019 while holding that the petitioner does not have any substantive right to continue on contractual employment, has keeping in view her experience issued a direction that she should be granted weightage in future appointments on the post of Block Programme Officer in case such vacancy arises. 6. Since the aforesaid direction has already been issued by this court, the present petition is also being disposed of in same terms. October 15, 2025 prabhat WRIA No. 12189 of 2025 2 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench