The Supreme Court emphasised that the State instrumentalities have the duty to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting, as effectively as it may, 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. The Bench observed, “An underlying current throughout the Constitution is the theme of “social justice”.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India underscored the responsibility of State instrumentalities to advance the welfare of the people by ensuring a social order characterized by justice– social, economic, and political.
This mandate aims to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities, and opportunities, reflecting the spirit of the Constitution.
This principle was reaffirmed in a Civil Appeal filed by Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, challenging a judgment by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
A two-judge bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice R. Mahadevan observed,
“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 may, 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.”
Social Justice as a Guiding Principle
The bench further remarked,
“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 case involved representation by AOR Jitin Chaturvedi and Advocate Manu Mridul for the appellants, while AOR Nishant Verma and Advocate Jayprakash Bansilal Somani represented the respondents.
Case Background
Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, established in 1970 under the Haryana and Punjab Agricultural Universities Act, faced legal scrutiny regarding the allocation of experience marks in its hiring process. In 2009, Haryana implemented an outsourcing policy for contractual engagements, which the university adopted in 2010.
In 2017, it awarded manpower contracts to two service agencies. The respondent, engaged as a clerk-cum-typist from May 5, 2017, to March 31, 2018, received an experience certificate countersigned by the university.
When the university advertised Group-C posts with five marks allocated for experience, the respondent applied and scored 75 marks but was not selected. Feeling aggrieved, she filed a writ petition challenging the allocation of experience marks.
A Single Judge ruled in her favor by granting 0.5 marks for experience, and the Division Bench upheld this decision. This prompted the university to escalate the matter to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Observations
Addressing the issue, the Court remarked,
“It cannot be gainsaid that even though the modalities for engagement of two individuals for executing similar nature of work could differ, there can be no quarrel that none can gain experience without being asked to work.”
The Court distinguished between the nature of employment on sanctioned posts and contractual engagements. It noted that permanent employees enjoy procedural safeguards that foster job security, while contractual employees lack such assurances. However, the bench emphasized,
“But, in case, both perform the work of clerks, the experience gained would not be much at a variance subject, of course, that the job requirement is not too different. It would also be relevant to bear in mind stipulations in the advertisement if, at all, they call for any special requirement for marks to be secured for experience, viz. previous service rendered on a sanctioned post or if salary, as is specified, has to be received for service rendered in order to be eligible to apply.”
The Court also highlighted the relevance of the State’s policy on experience marks, emphasizing its role in determining eligibility and fairness.
Validity of Experience Certificate
The bench criticized the university’s denial of experience marks based on procedural technicalities, stating,
“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. While we accept the contention raised by the University that the certificate was per se not issued by it, 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.”
Ensuring Social Justice
The Court deemed the university’s refusal to award marks for experience contrary to constitutional principles. It stated,
“The refusal to award any mark for experience to the Respondent would go against the grain of the Constitutional duty of ensuring equality and securing social justice for the deprived. Bound as we are to apply the Constitutional mandate prescribed in Articles 14 and 16 read with the preambular promise of securing social justice, we hold that non-grant of mark for experience to the first respondent was not proper and legal.”
Conclusion
In light of the facts and constitutional principles, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the impugned judgment, reiterating the necessity of aligning administrative decisions with the principles of equality and social justice.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Social Justice
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
