Bona fide outsourcing policy defeats challenge where no enforceable service right or removal order is shown.

A challenge to outsourcing of services failed because the impugned measure was treated as a bona fide policy decision aimed at economy and efficiency and consistent with applicable financial rules. The petitioners did not produce appointment orders, and there was no specific order of removal or contemplated termination shown against them. In the absence of clear proof of their service status and any enforceable legal right, they could not restrain outsourcing of the services concerned. The Tribunal's dismissal of the original application was therefore upheld, and the interim protection previously granted ceased to operate.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the original application challenging the policy decision to outsource certain services and whether the petitioners could, in the absence of clear proof of appointment and a specific order of removal, restrain such outsourcing.

Analysis: The impugned decision was treated as a policy decision taken in the interest of economy and efficiency and found to be in consonance with the applicable financial rules. The petitioners had not produced appointment orders, and the respondents asserted that no order of removal had been issued or contemplated. In that setting, the relationship between the parties and the precise service conditions of the petitioners remained unclear. The Court held that, on the materials before it, the petitioners had no enforceable right to prevent outsourcing of the concerned services.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the original application was upheld and no illegality was found in the Tribunal's order.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed, and the interim protection granted earlier ceased to operate.

Ratio Decidendi: A challenge to a bona fide outsourcing policy will not succeed in the absence of a clear legal right or a specific order affecting the petitioners' service status.

---