1 2026:CGHC:7298-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1424 of 2026 1 - Manoj Kumar S/o Shri Karan Singh Ateriya Aged About 39 Years R/o H- 55 Sector-1, P.T. Kashiram Nagar Colony, Near Old Govt. Hospital, Ring Road No. 01, P.S. Telibandha, P.O. - Ravigram, Tehsil And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Bhupendra Vishwakarma S/o Shri Milan Vishwakarma Aged About 37 Years R/o Vip Road, Fundahar, Police Station - Telibandha, Post - Ravigram, Tehsil And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Girish Raj Gupta S/o Shri Vishnu Prasad Gupta Aged About 43 Years R/o Sahyogpark, 2mahaveer Nagar, Police Station - Telibandha And Post - Ravigram, Tehsil And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Daniram Sahu S/o Shri Bharat Sahu Aged About 43 Years R/o Vip Road, Fundahar, P.S. - Telibandha, Post - Ravigram, Tehsil And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - Suresh Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Late Kartik Yadav Aged About 48 Years R/o Ganga Nagar Ward No. 23, Behind Mahatma Gandhi School, Geedam Road, Vikas Khand - Jagdalpur, P.S. Bodhghat, P.O. Jagdalpur, Tehsil - Jagdalpur, And District - Baster Chhattisgarh 6 - Umesh Kumar Thakur S/o Shri Devnath Thakur Aged About 46 Years R/o Taragaon, Sadakpara Vikas Khand - Baster, P.S. And P.O. Bhanpuri, Tehsil - Bhanpuri, And District Baster Chhattisgarh VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.02.11 20:09:28 +0530 2 7 - Dinesh Kumar Nag S/o Shri Sukuldhar Nag Aged About 29 Years R/o Gram Chhote Tumnar, Kumhar Para, Vikas Khand - Geedam, P.S. - Geedam, P.O. Chhote Tumnar, Tehsil - Geedam And District - Dantewada Chhattisgarh 8 - Shiv Kumar Thakur S/o Shri Paltan Ram Thakur Aged About 38 Years R/o Belahi Para Patan, Ward No. 07, Ranitarai Road, P.S. And P.O. Patan, Tehsil - Patan, And District - Durg Chhattisgarh 9 - Gyaneshwar Thaniram Bawane S/o Shri Thaniram Bawane Aged About 40 Years R/o A-218, Block-A, Indraprastha Phase-Ii, Raipura, P.S. Ddu Nagar, P.O. Sundar Nagar, Tehsil And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 10 - Bharat Lal Kurrey S/o Shri Mewa Ram Kurrey Aged About 42 Years R/o Gram Kurda, P.S. Malkharoda, P.O. Kurda, Tehsil - Malkharoda And District Sakti Chhattisgarh 11 - Doneshwar Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Govardhan Lal Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o H/n 39/685, Ward No. 50, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Tikrapara, P.S. And P.O. Tikrapara, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 12 - Lalit Kumar Dewangan S/o Shri Bhulau Ram Dewangan Aged About 43 Years R/o Ayodhya Nagar, New Changora Bhatha, P.S. Ddu Nagar, P.O. Sundar Nagar, Tehsil And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 13 - Kamdev Verma S/o Shri Gangaram Verma Aged About 34 Years R/o 79 Village Gabaud, P.S. Palari, P.O. - Sundrawan Tehsil - Palari And District Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh 14 - Lalit Kumar Sunani S/o Late Narhari Sunani Aged About 45 Years R/o Kali Nagar, Near Soniya Chowk P.S. And P.O. 0000 Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 15 - Jitendra Kumar Gendre S/o Shri Shyam Lal Gendre Aged About 44 Years R/o Satnami Gali, Near Jay Stambh, Vidhan Sabha, Baroda, Mandhar, P.S. And P.O. Vidhan Sabha, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 16 - Mahesh Tandi S/o Keshav Tandi Aged About 40 Years R/o H/n 39/685, Ward No. 07, Kusha Bhau Thakre Ward, Yahowa Church, Daya Nagar, P.S. And P.O. Saddu, Tehsil - Saddu And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 17 - Anil Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Gopal Prasad Sharma Aged About 39 Years R/o H.No. 139, Ward No. 68, Sheetla Para Raipura, P.S. Ddu Nagar And Post - Sundar Nagar, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 18 - Chandravati Sharma W/o Shri Anil Sharma Aged About 38 Years R/o H. No. 139, Ward No. 68, Sheetla Para, Raipura, P.S. - Ddu Nagar, Post - Sundar Nagar, Tehsil And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 19 - Kisun Minj S/o Shri Lukas Minj Aged About 36 Years R/o Ghutrapara, P.S. Batauli, P.O. Sedam, Tehsil Batauli, And District Surguja Chhattisgarh 20 - Purushottam Sahu S/o Shri Bhagvat Prasad Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Tanda, P.S. Kota, P.O. Tanda, Tehsil - Takhatpur And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 21 - Rameshwar Poyam S/o Shri Sampat Poyam Aged About 29 Years R/o H. No. 55, Sadal Para, Ward No. 04, Umargaon, P.S. Kondagaon, P.O. Bunagaon, Tehsil And District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh 22 - Deepak Nishad S/o Shri Jagmohan Nishad Aged About 31 Years R/o New Laxmi Nagar, Mowa, P.S. Mowa, P.O. Saddu, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 23 - Ram Narayan Sahu S/o Shri Devi Lal Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o 4 Bhuvan Nagar Near Mangla P.S. Civil Line, P.O. Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Police Station And Post - Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Chairman Office Of Chairman, Chhattisgarh Handicraft Development Board, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Managing Director Office Of Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Handicraft Development Board, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief General Manager Officer Of Chief General Manager, Chhattisgarh Handicraft Development Board, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - General Manager Office Of General Manager, Chhattisgarh Handicraft Development Board, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 6 - Incharge/ Manager Office Of Incharge/ Manager, Shabari Emporium, Amapara, Raipur Chhattisgarh 7 - Incharge/ Manager Office Of Incharge/ Manager, Central Store C.G. Haat, Pandri, Raipur Chhattisgarh 8 - Incharge/ Manager Office Of Incharge/ Manager, Shabari Emporium, Devendra Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh 9 - Incharge/ Manager Office Of Incharge/ Manager, Shabari Emporium, Mana, Raipur Chhattisgarh 10 - Incharge/ Manager Office Of In-Charge/ Manager, Shabari Emporium, 5 Branch Office, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 11 - Incharge/ Manager Office Of In-Charge/ Manager, Shabari Emporium, Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Ms. P.S. Nikita, Advocate along with Ms. Kusum Lalchandani, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, Deputy A.G. For Respondents No.2 to 11 : Mr. Ali Asgar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 10/02/2026 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the Petitioners assailing the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 12.08.2025 passed by Respondent No. 03, whereby the Human Resource Supply Contract entered into between the Chhattisgarh Handicraft Development Board and the outsourcing agency has been terminated/cancelled, and as a direct consequence thereof, the services of the Petitioners, who were engaged through the said agency and were working against sanctioned and functional posts under the control and supervision of the Board, have been brought to an abrupt end. The Petitioners contend that they were selected and engaged pursuant to a due process, have been continuously discharging duties of regular 6 and perennial nature for a considerable period with satisfactory service record, and that the impugned action has been taken without issuance of any show cause notice, without affording opportunity of hearing and without recording reasons, thereby offending the principles of natural justice. It is further pleaded that the impugned order is arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory in nature, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and has resulted in civil consequences without adherence to the procedure established by law, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction 2. The petitioners have filed the present petition seeking for the following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire original records from the office of the Respondent Authorities relating to the case of Petitioners. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the impugned order/action issued by the Respondent No. 03 dated 12.08.2025 (ANNEXURE-P/4). 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the Petitioners in service on their respective 7 posts with all consequential benefits, including payment of back wages for the period during which the Petitioners were kept out of service due to the illegal action of the Respondents. 10.4 That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct the respondents to treat the period from the date of discontinuation of the Petitioners till the date of their reinstatement as continuous service for all purposes, including seniority, continuity of service and consequential benefits. 10.5 That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the cases those Petitioners who have completed ten (10) years or more of continuous service, for regularization against available sanctioned posts in accordance with law, and applicable policy, keeping in view their long, continuous and satisfactory service on posts involving work of regular and perennial nature.” 3. The facts of the case as emerges from the pleadings of the petition are that, the Petitioners were engaged through a duly empanelled outsourcing agency pursuant to a Human Resource Supply Contract executed between the Chhattisgarh Handicraft Development Board 8 (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) and the said agency. The engagement was made against sanctioned and functional posts in the establishment of the Board for discharging duties of regular and perennial nature, essential to the day-to-day functioning of the institution. *******The selection of the Petitioners was undertaken after following a prescribed procedure by the outsourcing agency in terms of the contract and the guidelines issued by the competent authority. Upon their engagement, the Petitioners were posted at various units/offices under the administrative control and supervision of the Board and were assigned specific responsibilities commensurate with the posts against which they were working. Their attendance, work allocation and performance were directly monitored by the officers of the Board. *******The Petitioners continuously discharged their duties to the satisfaction of the authorities concerned and no adverse remark or disciplinary proceeding was ever initiated against them during the tenure of their engagement. Their services were extended from time to time in accordance with the subsisting Human Resource Supply Contract between the Board and the outsourcing agency. *******While the Petitioners were so working, Respondent No. 03 issued the impugned order dated 12.08.2025, whereby the Human Resource Supply Contract entered into with the outsourcing agency was abruptly cancelled/terminated. Consequent upon such cancellation, the engagement of the Petitioners stood discontinued 9 with immediate effect, without issuance of any individual notice to them and without affording any opportunity of hearing. *******The Petitioners submit that the impugned order was passed without assigning any specific reason affecting their individual performance or conduct and without considering the grave civil consequences that would ensue from sudden discontinuation of their services. No alternative arrangement or absorption was provided, despite the fact that the work against which the Petitioners were engaged continues to subsist and is of permanent and recurring nature. *******It is the specific case of the Petitioners that similarly situated persons engaged in other departments or under similar contractual arrangements have been continued, and that the impugned action has been taken in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner. The Petitioners further contend that the termination of the contract, resulting in cessation of their engagement, is a colourable exercise of power and is violative of the principles of fairness, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. *******Being aggrieved by the said action, and having no efficacious alternative remedy in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Petitioners have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of the impugned order dated 12.08.2025 and consequential reliefs. 10 4. Ms. P.S. Nikita, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners would submit that the impugned order dated 12.08.2025, whereby the Human Resource Supply Contract has been cancelled resulting in abrupt discontinuation of the Petitioners’ services, is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and unsustainable in the eyes of law. *******It is contended that the Petitioners were engaged against sanctioned and functional posts and were discharging duties of regular and perennial nature under the direct supervision and control of the officers of the Chhattisgarh Handicraft Development Board. Their selection was made through a prescribed procedure under the outsourcing arrangement and they have continuously rendered services for a considerable period with an unblemished record. No departmental proceeding, adverse remark or finding of misconduct was ever recorded against any of the Petitioners. *******Learned counsel would further submit that even assuming, without admitting, that there were certain minor lapses at any point of time, the Petitioners had on several occasions submitted written representations and tendered their unconditional apologies before the competent authority, explaining the circumstances and seeking leniency. However, the said representations were neither duly considered nor decided by the authorities. No order communicating acceptance or rejection of such representations was ever passed, which clearly demonstrates non-application of mind and violation of the principles of fairness in administrative action. 11 *******It is argued that the impugned action has been taken without issuance of any show cause notice to the Petitioners and without affording them any opportunity of hearing. The cancellation of the contract, though ostensibly directed against the outsourcing agency, has visited the Petitioners with serious civil consequences, namely, loss of livelihood and stigma. In such circumstances, adherence to the principles of natural justice was mandatory. The failure to provide an opportunity of hearing vitiates the entire action. *******Learned counsel would also contend that the work against which the Petitioners were engaged is still subsisting and is being carried out through other arrangements. Therefore, the discontinuation of the Petitioners alone, without any rational basis, is discriminatory and hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The action is not founded on any transparent criteria and amounts to arbitrary exercise of administrative power. *******It is further submitted that the impugned order does not disclose any cogent reasons justifying such drastic action. The absence of reasons renders the order unsustainable, as recording of reasons is an essential facet of administrative fairness and judicial review. An order affecting valuable rights must be reasoned, and failure to do so attracts interference by this Hon’ble Court. *******Learned counsel would lastly submit that the Petitioners, having served the institution diligently and having repeatedly approached the authorities by way of representations seeking 12 reconsideration and expressing regret wherever required, cannot be thrown out in such a mechanical manner. The impugned action, being arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and constitutional guarantees, deserves to be quashed and appropriate consequential relief be granted in favour of the Petitioners. 5. Per contra, Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondents/State would vehemently oppose the writ petition and submit that the same is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed at the threshold. *******It is contended that the Petitioners were never appointed directly by the Chhattisgarh Handicraft Development Board or the State Government. Their engagement was purely through a private outsourcing agency pursuant to a Human Resource Supply Contract executed between the Board and the said agency. The relationship, if any, existed between the Petitioners and the outsourcing agency, and not between the Petitioners and the State. Therefore, no master– servant relationship exists between the Petitioners and the respondents/State so as to confer any enforceable right upon them under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. *******Learned State Counsel would further submit that the Human Resource Supply Contract was contractual in nature, governed strictly by its terms and conditions. The competent authority, upon administrative exigencies and in public interest, took a conscious decision to cancel/terminate the said contract. The State, being a 13 contracting party, is well within its authority to terminate the contract in accordance with its terms. The Petitioners, being employees of the outsourcing agency, cannot claim any independent or vested right to continue once the principal contract itself stands terminated. *******It is argued that the engagement of the Petitioners was temporary and co-terminus with the subsistence of the contract between the Board and the outsourcing agency. The Petitioners were fully aware of the nature and tenure of their engagement. Therefore, upon cancellation of the contract, their engagement automatically came to an end, and no separate notice was required to be issued to them. *******Learned State Counsel would also submit that the impugned decision was taken after due consideration of relevant administrative factors, including performance, compliance with contractual obligations and overall functioning of the outsourcing arrangement. The scope of judicial review in contractual matters is limited, and this Hon’ble Court would not ordinarily interfere with policy or administrative decisions unless the same are shown to be arbitrary, mala fide or contrary to statutory provisions. In the present case, no such ground has been substantiated by the Petitioners. *******With regard to the representations allegedly submitted by the Petitioners, it is submitted that mere submission of representations or apologies does not create any legal right in their favour. The competent authority considered the overall circumstances and took a 14 policy decision in larger administrative interest. Non-acceptance of representations cannot be equated with violation of principles of natural justice, particularly when the Petitioners were not holders of civil posts under the State. *******It is further submitted that Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution are not attracted in the facts of the present case, as the Petitioners’ engagement was not through a regular recruitment process under statutory rules but purely through a contractual outsourcing mechanism. No element of discrimination or hostile treatment has been demonstrated. *******In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned State Counsel would pray that the writ petition, being misconceived and devoid of any enforceable legal right, be dismissed. 6. Mr. Ali Asgar, learned counsel appearing for Respondents No. 2 to 11 would submit at the outset that the writ petition is misconceived, belated and devoid of any enforceable legal right, and therefore deserves to be dismissed. It is contended that the Petitioners were engaged through a duly appointed service provider/security agency pursuant to an agreement executed for a fixed tenure of two years, i.e., from 2024 to 2026. Their engagement was purely contractual in nature and co-terminus with the subsistence of the agreement with the service provider. There was no direct appointment by Respondents No. 2 to 11, nor were the Petitioners appointed against any sanctioned regular posts in accordance with statutory recruitment 15 rules. *******Learned counsel would submit that though the Petitioners claim long association, in fact they have been working intermittently for the last 5–10 years under different contractors, under different heads and time-framed arrangements. Each engagement was independent and contractual, depending upon the tenure of the particular contractor. Thus, no continuity of service in the legal sense can be claimed so as to confer any right of regularization or parity with contractual employees directly engaged by the department. *******It is further submitted that during the subsistence of the present agreement (2024–2026), the Petitioners collectively raised a demand seeking parity with contractual employees of the department, including similar pay and service benefits. Such a claim is legally untenable, as the Petitioners were employees of the service provider and not of the department. The doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” cannot be invoked in absence of employer–employee relationship with the department. *******Learned counsel would draw attention to the fact that on 21st July, 2025, the Petitioners went on a collective strike without prior approval or lawful authorization, thereby severely hampering the functioning of the department. Essential services, including duties performed by peons, drivers and other support staff, were adversely affected. In view of the disruption, the department directed the service provider agency to ensure smooth functioning of the 16 establishment. *******It is submitted that subsequently, an opportunity was extended through the service provider agency to resume duties upon tendering apology and undertaking to maintain discipline. Out of the concerned employees, 15 individuals submitted unconditional apologies and were taken back in service. However, the remaining employees, including the present Petitioners, did not resume duties. *******Learned counsel would further submit that the service provider agency, in exercise of its contractual authority, terminated the services of the concerned employees on 12.08.2025. Since then, the Petitioners have not been working. As of now, 21 employees who were not on strike and 15 employees who rejoined after apology are working. In addition, 36 employees have been engaged on fresh daily-wage basis as an interim arrangement to ensure that departmental work does not suffer, pending engagement of a new service provider. *******It is also contended that the Petitioners have approached this Hon’ble Court after an unexplained delay of approximately six months from the date of termination, during which period substantial administrative changes have taken place and alternative arrangements have been made. After such lapse of time, much water has flown and the functioning of the department cannot be unsettled at this stage. 17 *******Learned counsel would further submit that all requisite documents have already been forwarded to the concerned Department/Government e-Marketplace (GeM) under the Ministry for issuance of fresh tender for appointment of a new service provider. The process for a regularized and streamlined set-up is under consideration. Therefore, the present petition has been rendered infructuous in practical terms. *******It is emphatically argued that the Petitioners cannot be retained as contractual employees of the department nor can parity be granted with contractual appointees directly engaged by the department, as such relief would amount to bypassing statutory recruitment procedure and would be contrary to settled principles of service jurisprudence. *******In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in The Municipal Council, represented by its Commissioner, Nandyal Municipality v. K. Jayaram and Others, Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 17711–17713 of 2019, decided on 16th December, 2025, wherein it has been reiterated that contractual or outsourced employees cannot claim regularization or parity as a matter of right in absence of statutory backing and due process of recruitment. *******In view of the aforesaid facts and settled legal position, learned counsel for Respondents No. 2 to 11 would pray that the writ petition, being devoid of merit and suffering from delay and laches, be 18 dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the pleadings and documents placed on record with due consideration. 8. At the outset, it is not in dispute that the Petitioners were not appointed by the State Government or by the Chhattisgarh Handicraft Development Board through any statutory recruitment process. Their engagement was admittedly through a private outsourcing agency pursuant to a Human Resource Supply Contract executed between the Board and the said agency. The Petitioners were, therefore, employees of the service provider and not holders of any civil post under the State within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. In absence of a direct employer–employee relationship between the Petitioners and the respondents, no enforceable public law right accrues in their favour to seek continuation in service as against the State. 9. The legal position in this regard is no longer res integra. In State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1, the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that appointments made dehors the constitutional scheme of public employment do not confer any right to regularization or continuation, and that courts ought not to issue directions which would amount to bypassing the constitutional requirement of recruitment through a fair and open process. The Petitioners herein, having entered service 19 through an outsourcing mechanism and not through any process recognized under statutory rules, cannot claim parity with regularly appointed or directly engaged contractual employees of the department. 10. It is also well settled that an outsourced or contractual employee, whose engagement is co-terminus with the subsistence of the principal contract, cannot claim continuation once the contract itself stands terminated. In Gridco Limited v. Sadananda Doloi, (2011) 15 SCC 16, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that a contract of employment governed by its own terms comes to an end upon expiry or termination of the principal agreement, and no separate notice is required unless stipulated by contract or statute. Similarly, in Municipal Council, Nandyal v. K. Jayaram & Ors., SLP (C) Nos. 17711–17713 of 2019, decided on 16.12.2025, it has been reiterated that outsourced employees cannot claim regularization, absorption or parity in service conditions in absence of statutory backing and due recruitment process. 11. The contention of the Petitioners that the impugned action violates the principles of natural justice also does not merit acceptance. The cancellation of the Human Resource Supply Contract was an administrative decision taken in relation to a contractual arrangement between the Board and the service provider. The Petitioners were not parties to the said contract. It is trite law that principles of natural justice are not to be applied in a straitjacket manner, particularly in matters arising purely out of contractual relationships. In State of 20 Uttar Pradesh v. Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd., (1996) 6 SCC 22, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that disputes relating to contractual obligations are ordinarily not amenable to writ jurisdiction unless public law elements or statutory violations are demonstrated. In the present case, the Petitioners have failed to establish any statutory infraction or mala fide exercise of power. 12. The argument founded upon Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution is equally misconceived. Equality clause cannot be invoked to perpetuate an irregular or contractual arrangement contrary to the established recruitment procedure. In Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3) (supra), it has been clearly held that the doctrine of equality cannot be pressed into service to claim continuation or regularization when the initial engagement itself was not through a constitutionally compliant process. The plea of “equal pay for equal work” is also untenable in absence of identity of employer and parity in mode of recruitment, as observed in State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized that parity can be claimed only when employees are similarly situated in all relevant aspects. 13. From the record, it further transpires that during the subsistence of the contract, the Petitioners participated in a collective strike on 21.07.2025, which disrupted essential functioning of the department. Though some employees tendered unconditional apologies and were permitted to resume duties, the present Petitioners did not rejoin. The services were thereafter terminated by the service provider on 21 12.08.2025. In such factual backdrop, the administrative decision to discontinue the outsourcing arrangement cannot be said to be arbitrary or colourable. Courts exercising judicial review do not sit as appellate authorities over administrative policy decisions unless the same are demonstrably mala fide, arbitrary or in violation of statutory provisions, as held in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651. 14. Another significant aspect is the delay and laches. The impugned termination is dated 12.08.2025, whereas the present writ petition has been instituted after a lapse of several months, during which fresh arrangements have been made and new personnel have been engaged. The Petitioners have not offered any cogent explanation for such delay. It is well settled that unexplained delay is a valid ground to decline relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly when third-party rights have intervened. Reference may be made to State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal Bhai, AIR 1964 SC 1006. 15. The relief sought by the Petitioners for reinstatement with back wages, continuity of service and regularization after completion of ten years of service would, in effect, amount to directing absorption into public service without adherence to statutory recruitment rules. Such a direction is impermissible in view of the authoritative pronouncement in Uma Devi (3) (supra), which cautions constitutional courts against issuing directions that defeat the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 22 16. Having regard to the totality of circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the Petitioners, being employees of an outsourcing agency, had no vested or statutory right to continue once the principal contract stood terminated. The impugned action does not suffer from arbitrariness, mala fides or violation of any statutory provision warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 17. In view of the foregoing discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in the writ petition. The Petitioners, being outsourced employees engaged through a service provider and having no direct employer–employee relationship with the respondent authorities, cannot claim reinstatement, continuity of service, back wages or regularization as a matter of right. The impugned action does not suffer from any arbitrariness, mala fide exercise of power or statutory violation warranting interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 18. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved