Unapproved Municipal Resolution Creates No Right to Contractual Extension; Employee Cannot Reject Outsourcing and Demand Direct Engagement: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case Name: Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab and Others
Date of Judgment: 25 August 2026
Citation: CWP-31523-2019
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Namit Kumar
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a contractual employee has no vested or constitutional right to compel a public authority to continue the earlier mode of direct contractual engagement after the competent authority has lawfully decided to procure such services through an outsourcing agency. A resolution passed by a municipal body does not create an enforceable right unless it receives the approval necessary for its implementation and conforms to the governing statutory and policy framework. The Court further held that a writ of mandamus can be issued only upon the petitioner establishing an enforceable legal right and a corresponding public or statutory duty. Long contractual service, past extensions, sympathy or equitable considerations cannot, by themselves, justify a direction for continuation or regularisation.
Summary: The petitioner was engaged as a driver by the Municipal Council, Moga, on a contractual basis in July 2009, initially for six months, and his engagement was extended periodically until 31 March 2019. The General House of the Municipal Council subsequently passed Resolution No. 57 dated 20 August 2019, proposing an extension of his contractual engagement. The resolution was, however, disapproved by the State Government on 19 September 2019. During the pendency of the writ petition, the matter was reconsidered and approval was granted on 21 August 2020 for engaging the petitioner through an approved outsourcing agency in accordance with the Government’s prevailing instructions. The petitioner did not join under the outsourcing arrangement and sought continuation under his earlier direct contractual engagement. The High Court observed that the Municipal Council’s resolution never attained operative or enforceable finality because it was subject to Government approval and had initially been disapproved. An elected local body’s resolution cannot override the statutory framework, the supervisory authority of the Government or a binding policy governing engagement of personnel. The manner in which a public authority meets its administrative and staffing requirements ordinarily falls within the executive domain and cannot be interfered with under Article 226 unless the decision is illegal, arbitrary, irrational or mala fide. Since the petitioner declined the alternative engagement offered through the outsourcing agency, he could not simultaneously insist upon restoration of the superseded contractual arrangement. The Court applied, in substance, the principle that a person cannot approbate and reprobate or derive an advantage from his own refusal to accept the revised lawful arrangement.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner had failed to establish any vested, statutory or constitutional right to continue as a directly engaged contractual driver. The Court found no ground to interfere with the competent authority’s policy decision to obtain driving services through an outsourcing agency and declined to issue a writ directing continuation of the petitioner’s previous contractual arrangement.