HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 15415 of 2026 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J. 1. Heard Shri Anil Kumar Yadav, Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that, without any notice or opportunity, while he was working as an outsourced employee at Zila Panchayat Inter College, Ugrasenpur, Prayagraj, he has been asked to revert to the agency, since his services are no longer required. He has placed reliance on Government Order dated 19.09.2025, wherein under Clause 10(4), it has been provided that the outsourcing agency shall not remove or change the employee, except with the permission of the concerned department or Institution and Nigam. For ready reference Clause 10(4) is reproduced herein below:- "(4) आउटसोिसग कािमक को आउटसोिसग एजेन्सी द्वारा स्वयं बदला/हटाया नहीं जा सकता है। अनुशासनहीनता तथा दण्डनीय अपराध आिद की िस्थित में सम्बिन्धत िवभाग/संस्था एवं िनगम की सहमित के पश्चात ही हटाया जा सके गा।" 3. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner has not been removed by the outsourcing agency, but it is the Institution in question, which having found that the functioning of the petitioner was not satisfactory; and have asked him to go back to the outsourcing agency, which does not amount to removal. 4. It is not the case of the petitioner that he has been removed by the outsourcing agency, and merely because the Institution in question not Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anil Kumar Yadav, Ashutosh Kumar, Raj Kishore Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Brijesh Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) being satisfied with his working, and having asked him to go back to the outsourcing agency, it cannot be said that Clause 10 (4) of the Government Order dated 19.09.2025, has been violated. 5. In view of the aforesaid, no interference is required with the order dated 30.06.2026; however, it is provided that in case the outsourcing agency requires dispensation with the services of the petitioner, it shall adhere to the Government Order dated 19.09.2025, as indicated hereinabove. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the petition lacks merit and is dismissed, subject to the observations made, hereinabove. However, there shall be no order as to costs. September 23, 2026 piyush WRIA No. 15415 of 2026 2 (Siddharth Nandan,J.) Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad