Read Time: 13 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court, on November 29, 2024, stated that the refusal to award any marks for experience to a candidate just because she had not worked on a sanctioned post and was engaged by an outsourcing agency would go against the grain of the constitutional duty of ensuring equality and securing social justice for the deprived.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and R. Mahadevan, while applying the constitutional mandate prescribed in Articles 14 and 16, read with the preambular promise of securing social justice, held that the non-grant of marks for experience to the first respondent, Monika, in the recruitment process for a Group C post was not proper or legal.

The court dismissed a civil appeal filed by Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, against the Punjab and Haryana High Court's division bench judgment, which affirmed a direction by a single-judge bench to consider the appointment of the respondent, Monika, to the post of clerk after awarding her 0.5 marks for experience as per the stipulations in the advertisement.

The bench said an underlying current throughout the Constitution is the theme of “social justice.” The Preamble, as well as Article 38 of the Constitution, enjoins upon the State instrumentalities the duty to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting, as effectively as it can, a social order in which justice – social, economic, and political – shall inform all the institutions of national life and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities, and opportunities, it added.

"Whenever a conflict arises between the powerful and the powerless, social justice commands the courts to lean in favour of the weaker and poorer sections where the scales are evenly balanced," the court said.

The appellant contended that, since the first respondent was engaged in the university by the service provider, Lavnya, under the outsourcing policy for the requirements of office work and not appointed on any regular or sanctioned post of clerk, the experience acquired by her could not be equated with the experience of working on a sanctioned post of clerk.

Defending the High Court's judgments, the respondent submitted that denying marks for experience to her was unreasonable, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 15, 16, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.

As per the policy, the essential requirement of experience was that the candidate should be working in any department of the Government of Haryana, irrespective of the mode of recruitment, because government institutes can hire manpower through either of the two modes, and in both cases, work is done in the government department, her counsel said.

While rejecting the University's contention, the bench said the respondent could not be denied the benefit of marks for experience merely because, at the time of appointment as outsourced manpower, she was not appointed on a sanctioned post.

"The true thrust of every selection process ought to be to find out and select suitable candidates, having experience in the related work and fulfilling other criteria, from among eligible candidates and to go ahead with appointing the more meritorious of those found suitable. If indeed an individual, without having any security of service, performs up to the mark and receives commendation from none other than the Head of the Department, who must have closely watched their performance, it would occasion a failure of justice to exclude such an individual for no better reason than that they did not work on a sanctioned post," the bench said.

The court further pointed out that, if indeed such a requirement existed, it had to be made explicitly clear in the advertisement without any ambiguity so as not to generate false hopes in the minds of individuals aspiring for public employment.

"Any other view would be against both the principles of equality and non-arbitrariness enshrined in the Constitution as well as principles of natural justice. Tested on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 16, the impugned decision of the University cannot sustain," the bench said.

The court found no hesitation in holding that the mode of employment is not the primary concern here.

"To our mind, the primary concern is the nature of work performed and whether the work undertaken by the candidate has any nexus with the purported work to be undertaken during the course of regular service," the bench said.

The court noted the first respondent had rendered service for a statutory body in excess of six months and is, therefore, covered by the last part of clause (d) without any room for doubt and hence, she had a valid claim for securing 0.5 marks for experience.

"The state policy, specifying that the individual must have worked on a post equal to or higher than the advertised posts in any of the enumerated departments to secure marks for experience, also reflects the state’s belief that the experience in such departments is directly relevant to the advertised posts. It is not open for the University to now deny marks on the basis of a technical procedural deviation that the experience certificate was not issued by the University, but rather by the service provider," the bench said.

While accepting the contention raised by the University that the certificate was per se not issued by it, the bench noted that the fact that it was countersigned by the Head of the Department validated the first respondent’s claim that she had indeed gained certain experience which deserved to be given credit.

"We also do not agree with the contention of the University that the first respondent did not work on the post of clerk and rather performed 'office work.' The certificate awarded to her evidently mentions that the work she was required to undertake was the work of Clerk-cum-Typist. Moreover, the certificate also mentions that her work was found quite satisfactory. The first respondent has also brought on record a memo by the Professor and Head of the Department which specifically acknowledges that she had been designated as a Clerk-cum-Typist during her tenure," the bench said.

Case Title: Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar & Anr Vs Monika & Ors