Service Law – Appointment – Selection process – Candidate, if eligible for marks under the category of experience vis-a-vis her engagement as outsourced manpower for the concerned time period – First respondent appointed under the Outsourcing Policy by service provider as clerk-cum-typist in the University, when no sanctioned post exists – Service provider awarded certificate of experience countersigned by the University – Thereafter, the University invited applications for direct recruitment to various Group-C (non-teaching) posts – First respondent applied and scored 75 marks in written test, falling short of selection – Claim of 0.5 marks for her experience for the service rendered when employed by service provider – Both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court held that the respondent was eligible for 0.5 marks for the service rendered – Interference:
Held: Refusal to award any mark for experience to the first respondent would go against the constitutional duty of ensuring equality and securing social justice for the deprived – Non-grant of mark for experience to the first respondent not proper and legal – It has not been shown that either the Recruitment Rules or the Advertisement specifically bars aspirants from securing marks for experience gained from contractual/outsourced employment – Primary concern is the nature of work performed by the candidate has any nexus with the purported work to be undertaken during the course of regular service – First respondent rendered service for a statutory body in excess of six months and thus, had valid claim for securing 0.5 mark for experience – 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 – It is accepted that the certificate was per se not issued by the University, the fact that it was countersigned by the Head of the Department validates the first respondent’s claim that she had indeed gained certain experience which deserved to be given credit – First respondent, thus, cannot be denied the benefit of mark for experience merely because at the time of appointment as outsourced manpower, she was not appointed on a sanctioned post – It would occasion a failure of justice to exclude such individual – If said was the requirement, 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 nonarbitrariness enshrined in the Constitution as well as principles of natural justice – Tested on the touchstone of Arts. 14 and 16, the impugned decision of the University cannot sustain – 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 – Thus, interference with the impugned judgment of the Division Bench not called for, though on different reasons – Constitution of India – Arts 14, 16. [Paras 20, 22, 25-30]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.