JUDGMENT : Sunita Agarwal, CJ. 1. This is wholly a misconceived petition filed in the name of Gujarat State Part Time Employees Association, through its President Mr. Girish Chhaganbhai Vaghela, who is a part time worker. The organization in which the alleged President of the Association is working has not been disclosed in the writ petition. There is no assertion in the writ petition that the petitioner – Association is a registered Association. There is no description of members of the petitioner – Association in the writ petition. We, therefore, have a reasonable doubt as to the credentials of the petitioner – Association to maintain the writ petition. It seems that the instant petition has been filed by a part time worker to agitate the grievances of the part time workers pertaining to the Government Resolution dated 01.04.2010, which has been issued for outsourcing of Class-III and Class-IV employees in Government Service. 2. In various paragraphs of the writ petition, it is stated that the whole concept of outsourcing is against the constitutional scheme of public employment by the Government. The State Government being a Welfare State though can make interim arrangement to engage workers on daily wage, but cannot bring an enactment to engage workers in public employment through contractors, who according to the petitioner, are middlemen. It is stated that a regular process of recruitment or appointment has to be conducted when regular vacancies are to be filled up that too, in accordance with the service rules. It is contended that the respondents are encouraging back- door entries in the public employment by outsourcing method. The power of the State being a model employer is more limited than that of a private employer and subjected to constitutional limitation and cannot be exercised arbitrarily. The contractors have become private employers to engage persons in public employment which is totally unconstitutional. It is then contended that no government order can substitute the statutory rule framed by the competent authority for recruitment the persons to public post. The further submission is made that no rules are framed for medical test, police inquiry, age, reservation etc., while laying down the conditions in the tender which are mandatory conditions in the public employment. The policy pertaining to outsourcing is prone to misuse of public exchequer by introduction of third party contracters in public employment. The further submission is made that no rules are framed for medical test, police inquiry, age, reservation etc., while laying down the conditions in the tender which are mandatory conditions in the public employment. The policy pertaining to outsourcing is prone to misuse of public exchequer by introduction of third party contracters in public employment. Reference has been made to the decision of the Apex Curt in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors., v. Uma Devi & Ors., reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 . 3. Dealing with the above contentions, it is stated in the affidavit of the Deputy Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Gujarat, that the State Government has issued a Government Resolution dated 25.04.2012 inter alia resolving to the effect that the tenure of the part-timers working with the offices will be extended only upto 31.05.2012 , with a further instruction that the respective offices during the said period, should initiate necessary steps as regards the engagement of employees through outsourcing and should complete the same on or before 31.05.2012. The said Government Resolution dated 25.04.2012 has been challenged by the part-timers working with respective offices in writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 7467 of 2012 and other cognate matters. After hearing the parties, this Court had passed an interim order of status quo on 31.05.2012, qua the petitioners in the said group of writ petitions, which are pending herein before this Court. 4. In another affidavit of the Under Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Gujarat, filed on 13.09.2019, it is stated that in the aforesaid writ petition, namely Special Civil Application No. 7462 along with 50 cognate matters seeking mandamus, commanding the respondent authorities not to terminate the services of part-time workers pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 01.04.2010, subject matter of challenge herein, by CAV judgment and order dated 21.12.2018 the learned Single Judge, all the writ petitions came to be allowed and the order passed therein has been confirmed by the Division Bench vide a judgment and order dated 09.05.2019. With the result, all the individual petitioners came to be extended wages at the minimum of their pay-scale at the lowest grade in the regular pay-scale applicable to the regular employees, holding the same post and that those who were made out of service, were required to be immediately taken back in service. With the result, all the individual petitioners came to be extended wages at the minimum of their pay-scale at the lowest grade in the regular pay-scale applicable to the regular employees, holding the same post and that those who were made out of service, were required to be immediately taken back in service. As a result of it, the State Government came out with a Circular dated 16.07.2019, in compliance of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, affirmed by the Division Bench. The submission, thus, is that the instant petition has been filed by the part time workers in the name of Association apprehending their termination which has now been put to rest. No cause of action, thus, survives for the petitioner - Association to continue with the challenge in the instant petition. 5. As regards the policy of outsourcing, it is stated that the State Government vide Government Resolution dated 29.08.2005 appointed a Committee to consider availing of service in Class-IV posts either by contract system or by agency system. The Committee after deliberation upon all pros and cons of the matter and various attending factors submitted a comprehensive report dated 08.03.2006. It was opined in the said report that adopting the method of availing services either by contract system or agency system will provide better quality of services coupled with achieving economy in the State exchequer. The State Government while taking into account the recommendation in the report of the Committee, while accepting the same has issued a Government Resolution dated 30.11.2006. The policy of availing the services of the Sevaks through agencies/contract system came to be replaced by the Government Resolution dated 01.04.2010, which reads as under :- “(i) Discontinue the system of back-door entry of Class-IV part- time/daily wagers; (ii) Reduce the huge financial burden over the State Exchequer incurred towards washing allowances, stitching allowances, uniform allowances, woolen clothes, shoe allowances, grant of bonus, food grain festival advances etc. (iii) Reduce the huge financial burden incurred towards the payment of gratuity, pension, lump sum financial packages to the families of the deceased employees etc.,” 6. It is further stated that there are large number of Class-IV employees employed at various levels in various Government offices and the respective Heads of the Government Departments have been empowered to effect their appointment in the services like Class-IV. It is further stated that there are large number of Class-IV employees employed at various levels in various Government offices and the respective Heads of the Government Departments have been empowered to effect their appointment in the services like Class-IV. The said procedure has been adopted to do away with the appointments being made on part time basis or ad-hoc in the past which had continued for years together resulting into litigation as a result of their removal from services. The main object of adopting such policy is to get rid of the menace of appointment of persons in Class-IV as a back-door entry. The functions like cleaning of government buildings, maintenance of gardens, operating elevators etc., which does not fall under the “core” functions of the Government, the services have been contracted out for cleanliness and sanitation of the Government Office buildings etc. The services of Class-IV employees can be outsourced from different agencies and it is well within the power of the State Government to curtail the expenditure and to minimize the administrative work relating to Class-IV services by procuring such services from outside. 7. Taking note of the above noted material brought on record, we find that the main grievances raised by the petitioner herein, that too through an Association which is not a registered Association, was with regard to engagement of the part time workers and their continuance in the government department and further replacement by outsourcing employees. With the orders passed in the writ petitions filed by the part-time workers as brought on record of the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it seems that the grievances of the part time workers had been addressed with the issuance of the Circular dated 16.07.2009 by the State Government, in compliance of the judgment and order dated 21.12.2018 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 7462 and 50 other cognate matters, which has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. The grievance which was raised in the year 2012, by filing the instant Public Interest Litigation to challenge the Government Resolution dated 01.04.2010, seems to have been brought at rest. The grievance which was raised in the year 2012, by filing the instant Public Interest Litigation to challenge the Government Resolution dated 01.04.2010, seems to have been brought at rest. Even otherwise apart from the vague assertions made in the writ petition as noted herein-above, nothing has been brought before us to demonstrate any illegality in the policy adopted by the State Government to engage contract workers to clean and sanitize Government buildings, which is actually a non-core function of the State Government. 7.1. Even otherwise, it is settled law that framing of policy for engagement of outsourcing employees is within the exclusive domain of the State Government and the Court has limited power of judicial review in a policy matter, to the extent where it is demonstrated that the government policy is malafide or completely unconstitutional. We may further record that the engagement of contract workers is regulated by the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 where the duties and responsibilities of Principal employer has also been outlined. Principal employer defined under Section 2(g) has also been outlined. Not a single instance has been narrated in the writ petition pending for a period of more than 12 years to demonstrate any mala fide action of any of the State Department in implementation of the policy of outsourcing of cleaning and sanitation employees for government buildings. 8. No reply has been submitted to the above noted two affidavits dated 19.12.2016 and 13.09.2019 filed on behalf of the respondents. 9. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., v. Principal, Abhay Nandan Inter College & Ors., reported in (2021) 15 SCC 600 wherein, the policy decision taken by the State of Uttar Pradesh to not create any new post in Class-IV category and to engage outsourcing employees to carry out the work whenever necessary, was challenged, has observed that :- “36. A policy decision is presumed to be in public interest, and such a decision once made is not amenable to challenge, until and unless there is manifest or extreme arbitrariness, a constitutional court is expected to keep its hands off. 37. A challenge to a regulation stands on a different footing than the one that can be made to an enactment. 37. A challenge to a regulation stands on a different footing than the one that can be made to an enactment. However, when the regulation is nothing but a reiteration of a policy reinforcing the decision of the Government made earlier, then the parameters required for testing the validity of an Act are expected to be followed by the Court. 38. An executive power is residue of a legislative one, therefore the exercise of said power i.e., the amendment of the impugned regulation, cannot be challenged on the basis of mere presumption. Once a rule is introduced by way of a policy decision, a demonstration on the existence of manifest, excessive and extreme arbitrariness is needed. 42. The Division Bench in considering the view has entered into an arena which was not required to be done. Much labouring was done in interpreting the word “Outsourcing”, however, such an exercise ought to have been avoided as it stands outside the scope of judicial review. We have already noted the fact that “Outsourcing” as a matter of policy is being introduced throughout the State. It is one thing to say that it has to be given effect to with caution as recommended by the Seventh Central Pay Commission, and another to strike it down as unconstitutional. “Outsourcing” per se is not prohibited in law. It is clear that a recruitment by way of “Outsourcing” may have its own deficiencies and pit falls, however, a decision to take “Outsourcing” cannot be declared as ultra vires of the constitution on the basis of mere presumption and assumption. Obviously, we do not know the nature of the scheme and safeguards attached to it.” 10. For the aforesaid reasons and taking note of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh (supra), the instant writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation is dismissed being devoid of merits. It is further clarified that the dismissal of the instant petition will not have any bearing on the employment of the officer bearers of the petition or any of the members of its organization. Rule is discharged.