APHC010040082026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 94 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-27 [3575] Sana Venkata Subbaiah ...Appellant Vs. The State of AP and others ...Respondent(s) ********** CORAM : HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE LISA GILL HON’BLE MR JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA DATE : 08th April 2026 Present: Mr. Srinivasa Rao Narra, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. K. Ashok, Junior Standing Counsel representing Mr. Venkata Rama Rao Kota, Standing Counsel for APSPDCL, for Respondent No.3 *** LISA GILL, J. 1. This appeal has been filed for setting aside order dated 31.10.2025 in W.P.No.29752 of 2025, passed by learned Single Bench, whereby, petition filed by present appellant / writ petitioner, has been dismissed. 2. Admittedly, writ petitioner was engaged for post of Shift Operator through an outsourcing agency, namely Sri Singu Solutions-Respondent No.7. His service was dispensed with by Respondent No.7 pursuant to communication dated 28.03.2025 issued by Executive Engineer, Operation Division, APSPDCL, Kadapa. 2 WA No.94 of 2026 Date: 08.04.2026 3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that services of Writ Petitioner / Appellant were dispensed with on the premise that he had not completed six months training (COE) in the Elector Sector; instead of period of two (2) years, he had completed only one year six months of training. 4. It is submitted that Writ Court has erroneously dismissed his Writ Petition without taking into consideration the fact that Writ Petitioner was serving the State itself, even though engaged through an outsourcing agency, and that his termination is stigmatic. It is thus, prayed that this appeal be allowed. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.3 refutes the arguments as raised while submitting that there is no question of any stigmatic termination. Apart from the fact that there is no relationship of employer and employee between State and petitioner, it is apparent that petitioner did not possess requisite qualifications to work as a Shift Operator. Dismissal of appeal is sought. 6. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have perused the record with their able assistance. 7. It is a matter of record, and not denied, that Writ Petitioner / Appellant was appointed though an outsourcing agency-Respondent No.7. It is a settled position that, in such circumstances, it cannot be held that there is a relationship of employer and employee between Petitioner and State. 8. Gainful reference in this respect can be made to judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited vs. Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola and others1, wherein it has been held as under: 1 (2019) 13 SCC 82 3 WA No.94 of 2026 Date: 08.04.2026 “23. From this judgment in Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills Case, (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 16, it is clear that Test No.1 is not met on the facts of this case as the contractor pays the workmen their wages. Secondly, the principal employer cannot be said to control and supervise the work of the employee merely because he directs the workmen of the contractor “what to do” after the contractor assigns/allots the employee to the principal employer. This is precisely what para 12 of Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills Case explains as being supervision and control of the principal employer that is secondary in nature, as such control is exercised only after such workman has been assigned to the principal employer to do a particular work.” 9. Reference can also be made to judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court Rajasthan State Road Development and Construction Corporation Limited vs. Piyush Kant Sharma and others2. 10. In a recent case of the Municipal Council, rep. by its Commissioner Nandyal Municipality vs. K. Jayaram3, it has again been reiterated that there is no relationship of employer and employee with the persons engaged through an outsourcing agency. While considering the question of parity of employees engaged through outsourcing agencies with regular employees, it has been held as under: “9. xxxx Another issue which has been flagged by learned senior counsel for the respondents is that the respondents being in the position they are, and the relief given being the minimum of the time scale of the pay attached to the regular post cannot be termed as giving them something which was not due or something excessive, for ultimately they also have a family to support and they 2 (2021) 12 SCC 411 3 2025 Supreme (OnLine) (SC) 110973 4 WA No.94 of 2026 Date: 08.04.2026 are also performing the job which is performed by people on the regular establishment. We have absolutely no doubt in our mind that such issue raised by learned senior counsel is of relevance, but the Court feels that the mode of contractual employment, that too, by a contractor and not directly by the employer will have to be seen in a different light in the eyes of law. If all such distinctions between a regular employee and such contractual employees is not made, then the basic concept of hiring through various modes and in different capacity would lose its purpose and sanctity and ultimately everybody would be getting exactly the same benefit. This cannot be permitted in law for the reason that employment under a State entity is a public asset and every citizen of the country has a right to apply for it. In a regular employment, directly made by the said State entity, there are safeguards to ensure that the system of employment/engagement is transparent and fulfills a minimum criteria and is open to all eligible persons and a mode/procedure is adopted for ultimately choosing the right person. When employees/workmen are taken through a contractor, it is the absolute discretion of the contractor as to whom and through which mode he would choose such persons to be sent to the principal. This is where the difference lies, which is a very valid distinction in law. The reason why there are safeguards in regular appointment is that there should not be any favoritism or other extraneous consideration where persons, only on merit, are recruited through a fully transparent procedure known in law. If the persons who are employed through a contractor, and have come to work, are given equal benefit and status as a regular employee, it would amount to giving premium and sanction to a process which is totally arbitrary as there is no mode prescribed in any contract as to how the contractor would employ or choose the persons who are to be sent, except for 5 WA No.94 of 2026 Date: 08.04.2026 the basic qualification, i.e., knowledge in the field for which they are required. The judgment/ order relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant aptly covers the field in the present case. The judgment cited by learned senior counsel for the respondents is basically different on facts for the reason that there the contractual employment was directly by the principal and in that background contractual workers have been regularized.” 11. Keeping in view the factual matrix as stated above, Writ Petition has been rightly dismissed by learned Single Bench. Learned counsel for appellant is unable to point out any infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order dated 31.10.2025, which calls for interference by this Court, at this stage, in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. 12. Writ Appeal is, thus dismissed, accordingly. No costs. 13. Pending miscellaneous application(s) are disposed of, accordingly. (LISA GILL) JUDGE (NINALA JAYASURYA) JUDGE Date: 08.04.2026 MS 6 WA No.94 of 2026 Date: 08.04.2026 HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE LISA GILL HON’BLE MR JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT APPEAL NO: 94 of 2026 Date: 08.04.2026 MS