ORDER/JUDGMENT – Shri Arun Katare, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri G. S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent. The instant intra-Court appeal preferred under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 assails the final order dated 27-9-2019 passed by learned Single Judge exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India dismissing the petition in question assailing the order dated 20-2-2019 issued by the respondent/ Corporation for engaging services of civil engineers through Centre for Entrepreneurship Development, Madhya Pradesh (CEDMAP) to discharge duties which were being discharged by the petitioners/appellants herein who had been appointed as Site Engineers on contractual basis sometime in 2011 and were continued till passing of the said impugned order. 2. Learned counsel for rival parties are heard on the question of admission. 3. Learned Single Judge while declining the claim of petitioners/appellants held that contractual services which were continued on annual basis since 2011 do not vest the appellants/petitioners with any right to continue in services and that adoption of novel method of engaging civil engineers though CEDMAP lies within the exclusive domain of employer since the same is a policy matter where Court ought not to tread. 4. After hearing learned counsel for rival parties, this Court sees no reason to take a different view than the one taken earlier by learned Single Judge, for reasons infra. 5. The submission of learned counsel for appellants/petitioners is that the policy dated 5-6-2018 (Annexure P/7) issued by the General Administration Department (GAD), Government of M. P. bestowing right upon suitable contractual appointee to be inducted into the regular establishment to the extent of reserving 20% posts in every department of the Government subject to certain conditions, has not been followed and instead contractual services of petitioners have been dispensed with by adopting the novel method of outsourcing which has been criticized by the Division Bench of this Court in order dated 28-3-2017 while deciding a bunch of petitions including W. P. No. 13783/2016. 6. As regards non-compliance of the policy decision vide P/7 is concerned, reply filed by the respondent/Corporation before the learned Single Judge and as well as this Court reveals in clear terms that the said policy is binding upon the respondent/Corporation and shall be followed as and when substantive appointments are made. 6. As regards non-compliance of the policy decision vide P/7 is concerned, reply filed by the respondent/Corporation before the learned Single Judge and as well as this Court reveals in clear terms that the said policy is binding upon the respondent/Corporation and shall be followed as and when substantive appointments are made. It is contended by the Corporation that since no substantive inductions have taken place and merely engagement of civil engineers is being made through CEDMAP through outsourcing, the policy (Annexure P/7) is inapplicable to the facts of the case. 7. The stand of the employer/Corporation cannot be found fault with as no regular recruitment of engineers is taking place and thus, the question of applying the policy (Annexure P/7) does not arise. 8. As regards the Division Bench decision dated 5-2-2018 passed in W. A. No. 536/2017 rendered at Principal Seat at Jabalpur is concerned, it is seen that Division Bench was adjudicating challenge to an interim order passed by the Single Bench on 28-3-2017 in a bunch of petitions including W. P. No. 13783/2016 (out of which W. A. No. 536/2017 arose). The Division Bench interfering with the said interim order of learned Single Bench passed the following directions while disposing of the said W. A. No. 536/2017 : – “We find that such judgment does not help the argument raised by learned counsel for the respondent, as contractual employee has no right to continue on the post after the expiry of the contract period, but it is also equally well settled that a contractual employee cannot be substituted by another set of contractual employee. Therefore, we find that the appellants can be permitted to engage substantive employees of the State Government on the post of Manager or Accountant-cum-Office Clerk. But the appellants cannot be permitted to outsource the Trainers by dispensing with the services of contractual employees as the Trainers who have discharged the work on contract basis are available. The engagement of Trainers through outsourcing the services is another way of engaging Trainers on contract basis. Therefore, we dispose of the present appeal by modifying the orders passed by the Learned Single Judge from time to time as follows : – 1. The appellants shall not engage another contractual employee including outsourcing the services of Trainers. 2. The engagement of Trainers through outsourcing the services is another way of engaging Trainers on contract basis. Therefore, we dispose of the present appeal by modifying the orders passed by the Learned Single Judge from time to time as follows : – 1. The appellants shall not engage another contractual employee including outsourcing the services of Trainers. 2. In case a Trainer in a particular Trade is not required at a particular Centre, the appellants shall avail the services of such Trainers in the other Skill Centers, subject to the consent of such Trainer to work in another center. 3. The services of the Trainer in the other Training Centers shall not be dispensed with unless the appellants find that services of the Trainer are not required in any of the Centres and its need shall not arise in the near future. 4. But if in future, any Trainer is required in a particular Trade after dispensing the service of a Trainer, the Appellants shall re-engage the Trainers, who were engaged at an earlier point of time. Thus the appeal is disposed of accordingly in the above terms.? 9. Thereafter the pending W. P. No. 13783/2016 was finally disposed of by the Single Bench on 24-4-2018 adopting the directions passed by the Division Bench as aforesaid in W. A. No. 536/2017. 10. The aforesaid reveals that Division Bench was of the view that contractual employee should not be replaced by another contractual employee and while so holding the means of employment through outsourcing was also held to be prohibitive. 11. In the instant case, respondent/Corporation while filing its reply before the Single Bench and as well as this Court has rightly submitted that the policy of State Government (GAD) vide Annexure P/7 is applicable to the respondent/ Corporation only when fresh recruitment of substantive basis takes place but has remained conspicuously silent in respect of policy of contractual employee being replaced by another employee engaged or appointed through outsourcing. 12. However it is noticeable from the pleadings in writ petition that the ground of contractual employee being replaced by another employee recruited not through regular substantive process but by way of outsourcing thereby rendering the action of employer arbitrarily, has not been raised by the petitioners/appellants. 12. However it is noticeable from the pleadings in writ petition that the ground of contractual employee being replaced by another employee recruited not through regular substantive process but by way of outsourcing thereby rendering the action of employer arbitrarily, has not been raised by the petitioners/appellants. For this obvious reason, learned Single Judge has not considered the said ground which is now being raised in this appeal for the first time. 13. A ground which is not raised by way of express pleadings or raised by way of arguments and not considered by the learned Single Judge cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time in a writ appeal. 14. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and therefore dismisses this appeal. 15. However the liberty sought by appellants to raise the aforesaid ground of contractual employment being replaced by employment through outsourcing by filing a fresh petition cannot be acceded to in the face of constructive res judicata coming in way of appellants/petitioners. 16. Accordingly, present petition stands dismissed sans cost.