Court No. - 37
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5623 of 2018 Petitioner :- Jitendra Chandel Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vikram Singh Shrivastava,Sangam Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,C.S.C.
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
It is not in dispute inter se parties that pursuant to an agreement between the State authority and fifth respondent i.e. Rama Infotech Pvt. Ltd. (a private Company), it was agreed that certain services shall be outsourced and in view thereof requisite staff was to be provided by the Company to the office of the Chief Medical Officer. By impugned order dated 14 November 2017, the Chief Medical Officer, Lalitpur informed the Company that petitioner and one another employee supplied by the Company were indulging in irregularities thereby causing loss to the department. Consequently, the services of the petitioner was dispensed with by the Company.
Learned Standing Counsel at the outset submits that the fifth respondent is a private Company and not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, therefore, writ petition against fifth respondent to enforce contract of service, is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution. In support of his submission reliance has been placed on the decisions rendered in the case of Anand Kumar Gupta and others vs. State of U. P. and others passed in Writ A No.48976 of 2017 along with connected matter decided on 31 October 2017 and in the case of Satish Kumar and others Vs. Union of India and others passed in Writ A No.47580 of 2015 along with connected matters decided on 14 March 2016.
Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that he is an employee of the fifth respondent, a private Company and his services has been terminated by the Company on the recommendation of the Chief Medical Officer, Lalitpur.
In the circumstances, in my opinion, writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable. Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
However, dismissal of this writ petition shall not preclude petitioner from seeking remedy, if any, available under law.
Order Date :- 22.2.2018 Manish Himwan