The bench, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and R. Mahadevan, heard an appeal by Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar. The university contested a High Court order that directed it to consider the experience of a respondent who had served as outsourced manpower for Group-C (non-teaching) posts.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court ruled that candidates cannot be denied experience marks solely because they worked as outsourced manpower. If their duties aligned with those of a sanctioned post, they are eligible for such marks, even if they were not formally appointed to a sanctioned position.
The bench, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and R. Mahadevan, heard an appeal by Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar. The university contested a High Court order that directed it to consider the experience of a respondent who had served as outsourced manpower for Group-C (non-teaching) posts.
The High Court had awarded the respondent 0.5 marks for each year of experience and directed that she be considered without affecting existing appointments.
The respondent had applied for a Group-C post, where 0.5 marks per year of experience, capped at five marks, were awarded. Despite scoring 75 marks, she fell below the cut-off because her outsourced experience was excluded. She challenged this decision, and the High Court ruled in her favor.
The university argued that outsourced work did not meet the criteria for sanctioned post experience and that the experience certificate issued by an outsourcing agency rather than the university itself was invalid. It further contended that its Outsourcing Policy prohibited certifying experience for outsourced employees.
In response, the respondent maintained that her work mirrored that of regular employees and that the criteria did not specify experience on a sanctioned post. She asserted that excluding her marks was arbitrary and violated her constitutional rights.
Court’s Observation
The Court dismissed the university’s argument, emphasizing that the absence of the term “sanctioned” in the advertisement’s experience clause was significant. The clause offered 0.5 marks for each year of experience on the “same or higher post” without specifying a sanctioned role.
The Court highlighted that neither the advertisement nor the Outsourcing Policy defined “post,” meaning candidates could secure experience marks if they demonstrated relevant experience with supporting documents.
The Court validated the respondent’s experience certificate, countersigned by the university’s Head of Department, noting that her duties aligned with those of regular employees. It criticized the advertisement’s ambiguity, suggesting it could mislead applicants.
The Court concluded that excluding candidates solely because they worked in outsourced roles would be unjust and contrary to principles of equality and fairness enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It stressed that selection processes should identify the most meritorious candidates, regardless of employment status, as long as their experience was relevant.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the university’s appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision.
