LEGAL ISSUE: Whether outsourced employees are eligible for experience marks in direct recruitment. CASE TYPE: Service Law. Case Name: Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University vs. Monika & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 29 November 2024
Date of the Judgment: 29 November 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 911
Judges: Dipankar Datta, J., R. Mahadevan, J.
Can an outsourced employee be denied experience marks for direct recruitment simply because they were not hired on a sanctioned post? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a service law matter, clarifying the criteria for awarding experience marks to candidates who have worked in government departments through outsourcing agencies. This judgment emphasizes that the nature of work performed, rather than the mode of employment, should be the primary consideration when evaluating experience for recruitment purposes. The bench comprised Justices Dipankar Datta and R. Mahadevan, who delivered the unanimous judgment.
Case Background
The case revolves around Monika, the first respondent, who worked as a clerk-cum-typist at Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University (hereafter, “the University”) through an outsourcing agency, M/s Lavnya Enterprises (hereafter, “Lavnya”), from May 5, 2017, to March 31, 2018. The University had adopted the State of Haryana’s outsourcing policy, which allows for hiring personnel through service providers. In 2017, the University advertised for direct recruitment to various Group-C (non-teaching) posts, including clerk positions. The advertisement allocated a maximum of five marks for experience, with 0.5 marks awarded for each year of experience in a similar or higher post in any Haryana government department, board, corporation, etc. Monika applied for the clerk position, scoring 75 marks in the written test. However, she was not selected because her experience with Lavnya was not considered for the experience marks.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1970 | Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University established. |
| 2009 | State of Haryana introduced outsourcing policy for engaging personnel through service providers. |
| 24.02.2010 | The University adopted the outsourcing policy. |
| 2014 | State of Haryana issued circular regarding experience certificates for outsourced employees. |
| 25.06.2014 | The University adopted the circular regarding experience certificates. |
| 2017 | University invited tenders for manpower through outsourcing. |
| 29.03.2017 | Contract awarded to service agencies, including Lavnya. |
| 05.05.2017 to 31.03.2018 | Monika worked as a clerk-cum-typist at the University through Lavnya. |
| 01.04.2018 | Lavnya issued an experience certificate to Monika, countersigned by the University’s Department of Soil Science. |
| 2018 | University advertised direct recruitment for Group-C posts. |
| 24.05.2022 | Single Judge of the High Court ruled Monika eligible for experience marks. |
| 06.12.2023 | Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the Single Judge’s decision. |
| 29.11.2024 | Supreme Court dismissed the University’s appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision. |
Course of Proceedings
Monika, aggrieved by not being considered for experience marks, filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. A Single Judge of the High Court ruled in her favor, directing the University to award her 0.5 marks for her service. The University appealed this decision, but a Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the Single Judge’s order. The University then approached the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s decision.
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the University’s advertisement for direct recruitment, which stated:
“(d) Experience: One half (= 0.5) mark for each year or part thereof exceeding six months of experience, out of a maximum of 10 years, on the same or a higher post in any Department/Board/ Corporation/Company/Statutory Body/Commission/Authority of Government of Haryana. No marks will be awarded for a period less than six months. (a maximum of 5 marks)”
The State of Haryana’s outsourcing policy and circulars, adopted by the University, were also relevant. The outsourcing policy allows for hiring personnel through service providers where posts have not been sanctioned. The circular dated 25.06.2014, prohibits issuance of experience certificate by any authority where persons are engaged through a service provider under Part I of the Outsourcing Policy.
Arguments
University’s Arguments:
- The University argued that Monika’s engagement was under Part I of the Outsourcing Policy, which is for positions where sanctioned posts do not exist.
- Since Monika was engaged through Lavnya, a service provider, and not on a regular sanctioned post, her experience cannot be equated to experience on a sanctioned post.
- The experience certificate was issued by Lavnya, not the University, and countersigning by the Head of Department does not make it a University-issued certificate. The University also drew attention to the Circular dated 25.06.2014, which prohibits issuance of an experience certificate by any authority where persons are engaged through a service provider.
- Monika’s application incorrectly described her employer as the University, whereas she was employed by Lavnya.
- Monika did not submit a valid experience certificate issued by a government department, board, corporation, etc.
- Granting Monika experience marks would disturb the seniority of selected candidates, and the select list has been exhausted.
Monika’s Arguments:
- Monika argued that she performed the same work as regular employees, irrespective of the mode of recruitment.
- The essential requirement for experience is working in any department of the Government of Haryana, regardless of the mode of recruitment.
- The University did not disclose that the post of Clerk-cum-Typist is a sanctioned post.
- Denying experience marks is arbitrary and violates Articles 14, 15, 16, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
- With 0.5 experience marks, Monika would enter the zone of selection.
- There are 13 vacant posts, and the selection list is valid for one year.
- Monika relied on Sachivalaya Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karamchari Union v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [(2017) 11 SCC 421], where the Supreme Court upheld the policy of giving weightage to services rendered by employees temporarily or on an ad-hoc basis.
- The University has issued a 2nd Appointment List wherein two candidates who have secured 75 marks have been selected and appointed for the said post.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Nature of Employment | Engagement under Part I of Outsourcing Policy (no sanctioned post) | University |
| Performed same work as regular employees | Monika | |
| Mode of recruitment irrelevant if work is in government department | Monika | |
| Experience Certificate | Issued by Lavnya, not University | University |
| Countersigned by Head of Department, validating experience | Monika | |
| Circular dated 25.06.2014 prohibits issuance of experience certificate by any authority where persons are engaged through a service provider | University | |
| Validity of Experience | Experience gained on a non-sanctioned post cannot be equated to experience on a sanctioned post | University |
| Experience in any Haryana Govt department should be considered | Monika | |
| Other Arguments | Granting experience marks will disturb seniority and select list is exhausted | University |
| University did not disclose if the post of Clerk-cum-Typist is a sanctioned post | Monika |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The core issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the first respondent, in terms of the Advertisement, was eligible to be awarded half a mark (0.5) under the category of ‘experience’ vis-à-vis her engagement as outsourced manpower for the concerned time period, in light of the Rules and Circulars of the SoH as adopted by the University.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the first respondent was eligible for experience marks. | Yes, the first respondent was eligible for experience marks. | The Court held that the primary concern is the nature of work performed, not the mode of employment. The advertisement did not specify that experience must be on a sanctioned post. The first respondent’s work as a clerk-cum-typist was relevant, and the experience certificate, though issued by Lavnya, was countersigned by the Head of Department, validating her experience. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How Considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dr. Kumar Bar Das v. Utkal University [(1999) 1 SCC 453] | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Words in an advertisement should not be applied in a technical sense but should be given effect to. |
| Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai v. State of Bihar [(2019) 20 SCC 17] | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Literal interpretation of a statute is the first step, but consequences of interpretation should also be considered. |
| Sachivalaya Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karamchari Union v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [(2017) 11 SCC 421] | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished | Upheld weightage to services rendered by employees temporarily or on ad-hoc basis, but in the context of an existing settlement agreement. |
| Union of India v. M. Bhaskar [(1996) 4 SCC 416] | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Experience is gained from the date of actual promotion, not notional promotion. |
| P Kumaraswamy v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras [(1976) 1 SCC 373] | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Literal reading of the applicable framework is essential for any determination. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | Treatment by the Court |
|---|---|
| The University’s argument that Monika’s engagement was under Part I of the Outsourcing Policy, which is for positions where sanctioned posts do not exist. | The Court acknowledged this fact but stated that it does not change the fact that Monika performed the work of a clerk and gained experience. The primary concern is the nature of work performed, not the mode of employment. |
| The University’s argument that since Monika was engaged through Lavnya, a service provider, and not on a regular sanctioned post, her experience cannot be equated to experience on a sanctioned post. | The Court rejected this argument, stating that the advertisement did not specify that experience must be on a sanctioned post. What is important is that the nature of work undertaken by the candidate has a nexus with the purported work to be undertaken during the course of regular service. |
| The University’s argument that the experience certificate was issued by Lavnya, not the University, and countersigning by the Head of Department does not make it a University-issued certificate. | The Court accepted that the certificate was not issued by the University but noted that the countersigning by the Head of Department validated Monika’s claim that she had gained relevant experience. |
| The University’s argument that Monika’s application incorrectly described her employer as the University, whereas she was employed by Lavnya. | The Court did not give much weight to this argument, focusing on the fact that Monika had performed the work of a clerk in the University. |
| The University’s argument that Monika did not submit a valid experience certificate issued by a government department, board, corporation, etc. | The Court held that the experience certificate issued by Lavnya, countersigned by the Head of the Department, was sufficient to prove that Monika had gained relevant experience in a government department. |
| The University’s argument that granting Monika experience marks would disturb the seniority of selected candidates, and the select list has been exhausted. | The Court did not address this argument directly, but stated that denial of experience marks to Monika would go against the principles of equality and social justice. |
| Monika’s argument that she performed the same work as regular employees, irrespective of the mode of recruitment. | The Court agreed with this argument, emphasizing that the nature of work performed is the primary consideration. |
| Monika’s argument that the essential requirement for experience is working in any department of the Government of Haryana, regardless of the mode of recruitment. | The Court upheld this argument, stating that the advertisement did not specify that experience must be on a sanctioned post. |
| Monika’s argument that the University did not disclose that the post of Clerk-cum-Typist is a sanctioned post. | The Court stated that nothing turns on it. It is not in dispute that the first respondent was never directly appointed by the University on any sanctioned post of Clerk. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- Dr. Kumar Bar Das v. Utkal University [(1999) 1 SCC 453]: The Court followed this case to emphasize that words in an advertisement should be given effect to and not applied in a technical sense.
- Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai v. State of Bihar [(2019) 20 SCC 17]: The Court followed this case to highlight that while literal interpretation is the first step, the consequences of interpretation should also be considered.
- Sachivalaya Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karamchari Union v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [(2017) 11 SCC 421]: The Court distinguished this case, stating that it was limited to the enforcement of an existing settlement agreement and did not lay down a general rule regarding experience marks for contractual/non-regular posts.
- Union of India v. M. Bhaskar [(1996) 4 SCC 416]: The Court followed this case to emphasize that experience is gained from the date of actual promotion, not notional promotion.
- P Kumaraswamy v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras [(1976) 1 SCC 373]: The Court followed this case to highlight that a literal reading of the applicable framework is essential for any determination.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- Nature of Work: The Court emphasized that the nature of work performed by an individual is more important than the mode of employment. If an individual performs work relevant to the advertised post, their experience should be considered.
- Literal Interpretation: The Court noted that the advertisement did not explicitly state that experience must be on a sanctioned post. Therefore, a literal interpretation favored considering the first respondent’s experience.
- Social Justice: The Court highlighted the constitutional mandate to ensure social justice and equality. Denying experience marks to an individual who has gained relevant experience would go against this mandate.
- Validation of Experience: The Court acknowledged that while the experience certificate was issued by the service provider, the countersignature of the Head of the Department validated the first respondent’s claim of having gained relevant experience.
- Constitutional Mandate: The Court emphasized the constitutional duty to promote equality and social justice, which weighed heavily in favor of the first respondent.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Constitutional Mandate | 30% |
| Nature of Work | 30% |
| Literal Interpretation | 20% |
| Validation of Experience | 10% |
| Social Justice | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 40% |
| Law | 60% |
Logical Reasoning:
The court considered alternative interpretations, such as the University’s argument that experience should only be counted if gained on a sanctioned post. However, the court rejected this interpretation because it was not explicitly stated in the advertisement and would go against the principles of equality and social justice. The final decision was reached by prioritizing the nature of work performed and the constitutional mandate of social justice.
The Supreme Court held that the mode of employment is not the primary concern, but rather the nature of work performed. The Court also noted that the advertisement did not explicitly require experience to be gained on a sanctioned post. It emphasized that denying experience marks to the first respondent would be against the principles of equality and social justice.
The Court stated that, “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.”
The Court also stated that, “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 his/her performance, it would occasion a failure of justice to exclude such individual for no better reason than that he/she did not work on a sanctioned post.”
The Court further stated that, “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.”
There was no minority opinion in this case, as both Justices Dipankar Datta and R. Mahadevan concurred in the judgment.
The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on a literal reading of the advertisement, the nature of work performed by the first respondent, and the constitutional mandate of social justice. The Court also considered the fact that the experience certificate was countersigned by the Head of the Department, validating the first respondent’s claim of having gained relevant experience. The court’s interpretation of the advertisement ensured that the selection process is fair and inclusive, and does not exclude candidates based on technicalities.
The judgment has potential implications for future cases involving outsourced employees seeking experience marks in direct recruitment. It emphasizes that the nature of work performed should be the primary consideration, rather than the mode of employment. This could lead to a more inclusive approach in recruitment processes, where experience gained through outsourcing is given due consideration.
The judgment did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles but rather reaffirmed the existing principles of equality, social justice, and literal interpretation of statutes and advertisements.
Key Takeaways
- Outsourced employees are eligible for experience marks in direct recruitment if they have performed work relevant to the advertised post.
- The nature of work performed is more important than the mode of employment.
- Advertisements should be clear and unambiguous about the criteria for awarding experience marks.
- Denying experience marks based on technicalities goes against the principles of equality and social justice.
- Experience certificates issued by service providers, if countersigned by relevant authorities, can be considered valid.
This judgment could lead to a more inclusive approach in recruitment processes, where experience gained through outsourcing is given due consideration. It may also prompt government departments and other recruiting agencies to be more explicit in their advertisements about the criteria for awarding experience marks.
Directions
The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions other than upholding the High Court’s decision and dismissing the appeal.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the nature of work performed is the primary consideration for awarding experience marks, and the mode of employment is secondary. This judgment clarifies that experience gained through outsourcing should be considered valid if the work is relevant to the advertised post. This is not a change in the previous position of law, but rather a reaffirmation of existing legal principles in the context of outsourced employment.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision to grant experience marks to the first respondent. The Court emphasized that the nature of work performed is the primary consideration, and the mode of employment is secondary. This judgment reinforces the principles of equality and social justice, ensuring that candidates are not excluded from consideration based on technicalities.
Category
Parent Category: Service Law
Child Category: Experience Marks
Child Category: Outsourced Employees
Parent Category: Constitution of India
Child Category: Article 14, Constitution of India
Child Category: Article 16, Constitution of India
Parent Category: Haryana Agricultural University
Child Category: Recruitment Rules, Haryana Agricultural University
Parent Category: Outsourcing Policy
Child Category: Government Outsourcing Policy
FAQ
Q: Are outsourced employees eligible for experience marks in government job recruitments?
A: Yes, if the work performed is relevant to the advertised post, outsourced employees are generally eligible for experience marks. The mode of employment is secondary to the nature of work.
Q: What if my experience certificate is from an outsourcing agency and not directly from the government department?
A: If the experience certificate is countersigned by a relevant authority in the government department, it can be considered valid proof of your work experience.
Q: Does this judgment mean all outsourced employees will get experience marks?
A: Not necessarily. The work performed must be relevant to the advertised post, and the advertisement should not explicitly exclude outsourced employees. Each case will be evaluated based on its specific facts and the terms of the advertisement.
Q: What should I do if I am denied experience marks despite having relevant experience?
A: You can approach the relevant authorities and cite this judgment to support your claim. If the issue is not resolved, you may have to approach the appropriate court.
Q: How can government departments ensure fair recruitment practices for outsourced employees?
A: Government departments should be clear and unambiguous in their advertisements about the criteria for awarding experience marks. They should also ensure that the mode of employment is not a barrier to considering relevant experience.