Article 226 relief is unavailable absent proof of State employment or direct engagement.

The petitioner, engaged through a private placement agency, Alert Commando Pvt. Ltd., was posted as a salesman at a country liquor shop in Balodabazar. He challenged the Collector’s order dated 3 August 2026, passed pursuant to an earlier direction of the High Court in WPS No. 3048 of 2026, rejecting his representation concerning his alleged blacklisting.

The alleged basis of the blacklisting was that he was present and working as a salesman at the liquor shop during an inspection conducted on 25 October 2019. The petitioner contended that he was not present on the date of inspection and that the Collector rejected his representation without affording him an opportunity of hearing. The State opposed the petition, asserting that the petitioner was an employee of a private placement agency, had produced no proof of direct employment by the State or at the concerned liquor shop, and had not produced any order of blacklisting.

Whether the petitioner, being an employee of a private placement agency and not of the State Government, could obtain relief under Article 226 of the Constitution in relation to the alleged blacklisting.

Whether the petitioner had produced sufficient documentary material to establish his direct engagement or employment at the concerned country liquor shop and thereby challenge the Collector’s order rejecting his representation.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to relief against the Collector’s order dated 3 August 2026, including removal of his name from the blacklist.

The Court applied the general principles governing writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, including the requirement that a petitioner seeking public-law relief must establish a legally enforceable right and place supporting material on record.

The Court treated the petitioner’s status as an employee of a private placement agency as material to the maintainability and merits of the writ petition. It further applied the evidentiary principle that a petitioner must substantiate the asserted employment relationship and the alleged impugned action through documentary evidence.

The Court found that the petitioner had failed to produce any document establishing that he was an employee of the State Government or that he was directly engaged at the concerned country liquor shop with effect from 1 November 2019.

Since the admitted position was that he was employed by a private placement agency, and since he had also failed to produce documentary evidence proving his engagement at the shop or an order of blacklisting, the Court held that no effective relief could be granted in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The Court therefore did not grant relief on the petitioner’s allegations regarding his absence during the inspection or the alleged denial of a hearing.

The Court held that the petitioner had not established either a State employment relationship or direct engagement at the concerned liquor shop sufficient to invoke writ relief. However, the petitioner was granted liberty to approach the appropriate authority if he had any grievance against the private placement agency.