Termination of outsourcing agency employees without notice is invalid, though no right to regularization exists.

The petitioners were appointed as Data Entry Operators (DEOs) in upgraded Government High Schools and Higher Secondary Schools through an outsourcing agency, M/s Sainath Sales and Services, Morena (Respondent No. 5).

The State had issued orders dated 25-01-2018 and 10-05-2018 directing that such posts be filled through the Government e-Marketplace (GeM) Portal by Block Education Officers (BEOs).

Following a competitive bidding process involving 45 agencies, Respondent No. 5 was awarded the contract, and the petitioners were subsequently appointed.

On 29-09-2018, Respondent No. 4, under the direction of Respondent No. 3, issued an order cancelling the petitioners' appointments without providing a show-cause notice or an opportunity for a hearing.

The State contended the appointments were made by mistake and failed to follow the prescribed procedure.

1. Whether the termination of the petitioners' services via the impugned order dated 29-09-2018 was legally sustainable given the lack of notice and the nature of their recruitment.

2. Whether the procedural irregularities alleged by the State justified the cancellation of appointments made through a registered GeM Portal agency.

The court applied the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem), before the termination of services.

Administrative orders dated 25-01-2018 and 10-05-2018 issued by the School Education Department, which mandated the recruitment of DEOs through outsourcing agencies registered on the GeM Portal to fill vacancies in upgraded educational institutions.

The court distinguished between the status of contractual employees of an outsourcing agency and regular government servants regarding the right to claim regularization.

The court found that the petitioners met the requisite academic and technical qualifications and were hired through an agency (Respondent No. 5) that had successfully participated in a legitimate bidding process on the GeM Portal as required by State orders.

The court noted that the Block Education Officer had followed the directive to use the GeM Portal.

The court highlighted a critical procedural lapse: the impugned cancellation order was issued without a show-cause notice or any opportunity for the petitioners to be heard, violating natural justice.

The court reasoned that even if a "proper" procedure had been strictly followed, the outcome would not have changed; the petitioners would still be employees of the same outsourcing agency.

Since the agency was duly registered and the contract was awarded based on merit and experience, the court found no illegality in the appointments.

The court held that the petitioners are entitled to all consequential benefits.

The court clarified that the petitioners remain employees of the outsourcing agency, Sainath Sales and Services, and not the State Government; therefore, they have no legal right to claim regularization of service against the State.