VEENA MATHUR Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no.1.

(2.) At the very outset, learned Standing Counsel takes a preliminary objection that the petitioner being an employee of respondent no.4, VAP Infosolutions, a service provider and a private company, the present petition would not be maintainable before this Court. The said objection is rebutted by learned counsel for the petitioner by contending that the petitioner was appointed on the post of State Project Manager/Human Resource by respondent no.4 after selection process and information provided by Uttar Pradesh State Rural Livelihood Mission (for short, 'UPSRLM'). The copy of the offer of appointment of the petitioner is Annexure-3 to the petition. The appointment was governed by the Rules and Regulations of respondent no.4, which is a Company. The appointment was on a contract basis for one year, renewable, subject to annual performance review and as per the discretion of the Mission Director of UPSRLM. The period of contract was valid till 30.09.2019. It is contended that despite the petitioner being appointed by respondent no.4, as there is deep and pervasive control of the State Government over the management of UPSRLM and the appointment of the petitioner was also governed by the Rules and Regulations of respondent no.4 as directed by UPSRLM and contract was also renewable subject to annual performance review as per discretion of the Mission Director of UPSRLM and that the Rules and Regulations as framed by the UPSRLM would be conditional upon the petitioner as such despite the appointment of the petitioner having been made by respondent no.4, it is UPSRLM which is the body governing the terms and conditions of appointment of the petitioner and consequently the present petition would be maintainable before this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the appointment order itself provides that the selection process has been done by UPSRLM and respondent no.4 has only issued the appointment order and further as per appointment order itself as the contract is renewable subject to annual performance review and as per discretion of the Mission Director of UPSRLM and that it is the Mission Director of UPSRLM who would have the right to terminate the services of the petitioner and further the Rules and Regulations as framed by UPSRLM would be conditional upon the petitioner as such merely because the petitioner has been appointed by a private Company, that would not take away the fact of appointment of the petitioner being governed by the Rules and Regulations of UPSRLM, a State within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and thus the present petition would be maintainable.