In a significant ruling that underscores the primacy of merit and experience in public recruitment, the Supreme Court of India emphasized that selection processes should prioritize suitability and experience over procedural technicalities. The bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice R. Mahadevan upheld the eligibility of an outsourced employee, Monika, to receive marks for her experience in a recruitment process for the post of Clerk at Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University (CCSHAU), Hisar.
The judgment affirmed the decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s Single Judge and Division Bench, which had directed the university to award Monika the marks she was entitled to and consider her for appointment.
Case Background
The case, CCSHAU & Anr. v. Monika & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 10800 of 2024), revolved around the denial of experience marks to Monika, who had served as a Clerk-cum-Typist at CCSHAU through an outsourcing agency, M/s Lavnya Enterprises, from May 2017 to March 2018. When Monika applied for direct recruitment to the same post, her work experience was deemed ineligible for scoring under the recruitment advertisement, as it was acquired through outsourcing rather than on a sanctioned post.
Monika challenged this decision before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which ruled in her favor. CCSHAU appealed against the High Court’s decision to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues
The case raised critical questions about:
1. Recognition of Outsourced Work Experience: Should work experience gained through outsourced roles be considered equivalent to experience on sanctioned posts in public sector recruitments?
2. Interpretation of Recruitment Advertisements: Whether the absence of explicit exclusions in the recruitment advertisement allowed outsourced employees to claim experience marks.
3. Constitutional Mandates: Whether denying marks to outsourced employees contravenes Articles 14 (equality before law) and 16 (equal opportunity in public employment) of the Indian Constitution.
Supreme Court’s Observations
Justice Dipankar Datta, delivering the judgment, asserted that selection processes should focus on identifying the most suitable candidates rather than being constrained by technical procedural barriers. The court observed:
“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 bench held that the recruitment advertisement did not require experience to be exclusively on sanctioned posts. Monika, who had worked on similar duties as a Clerk-cum-Typist under the university’s outsourcing arrangements, was entitled to marks for her experience.
Key Findings
1. Nature of Work Over Technicalities: The court clarified that the nature of work performed, rather than the procedural mode of engagement, should determine eligibility for experience marks. It stated that Monika’s experience as an outsourced Clerk-cum-Typist was relevant and met the requirements of the recruitment advertisement.
2. Literal Interpretation of Advertisements: A literal reading of the recruitment advertisement did not specify that experience had to be on sanctioned posts. The court rejected the university’s argument that outsourcing disqualified Monika’s claim.
3. Constitutional and Social Justice Principles: Denying marks for Monika’s experience would undermine the principles of equality and social justice enshrined in Articles 14 and 16. The court observed that procedural safeguards for regular employees should not disadvantage outsourced workers performing the same duties.
Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that Monika was entitled to 0.5 marks for her experience and directed CCSHAU to consider her for appointment. The court reiterated that public recruitment must focus on selecting the most suitable candidates without being bogged down by procedural formalities.
