Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University and another against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which had directed the University to award 0.5 mark for experience to the first respondent, Monika, and consider her for appointment as Clerk. The first respondent was engaged as outsourced manpower through a service provider, M/s Lavnya Enterprises, under Part I of the Haryana Outsourcing Policy from 05.05.2017 to 31.03.2018. In 2019, the University advertised for direct recruitment to Group-C posts, prescribing a maximum of 5 marks for experience, with 0.5 mark for each year of experience in the same or higher post in any department/board/corporation/company/statutory body/commission/authority of the Government of Haryana. The first respondent scored 75 marks in the written test but was not selected. She filed a writ petition seeking 0.5 mark for her experience, which was allowed by the Single Judge and affirmed by the Division Bench. The Supreme Court reversed these decisions, holding that the first respondent was engaged under Part I of the Outsourcing Policy, which applies where no sanctioned post exists. The term 'post' in the advertisement must mean a sanctioned post, and experience gained as outsourced manpower under Part I does not qualify. Additionally, the Circular dated 25.06.2014 prohibits issuance of experience certificates for Part I engagements, and the certificate issued by the service provider and countersigned by the Head of Department does not meet the requirement. The Court also noted that the first respondent's application described her employment as contractual and her employer as the University, which was incorrect. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's orders.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recruitment - Experience Weightage - Interpretation of 'Post' - Haryana Outsourcing Policy, Part I - The appellant-university challenged the High Court's direction to award 0.5 mark for experience to the first respondent who worked as outsourced manpower under Part I of the Outsourcing Policy (where no sanctioned post exists). The Supreme Court held that the term 'post' in the advertisement must mean a sanctioned post, and experience gained as outsourced manpower under Part I does not qualify as experience in the same or higher post. The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's orders. (Paras 11-20) B) Service Law - Outsourcing Policy - Part I vs Part II - Distinction - Haryana Outsourcing Policy - Part I deals with engagement of persons through service providers where no sanctioned posts exist, while Part II deals with contract engagement where regular posts exist. The Court emphasized that the first respondent was engaged under Part I, and thus her experience cannot be equated with experience on a sanctioned post. (Paras 12-14) C) Service Law - Experience Certificate - Validity - Circular dated 25.06.2014 - The Circular prohibits issuance of experience certificates by any authority for persons engaged under Part I of the Outsourcing Policy. The experience certificate issued by the service provider and countersigned by the Head of Department does not make it a valid certificate issued by the University. (Paras 15-16) D) Service Law - Recruitment - Weightage for Experience - Requirement of Sanctioned Post - The advertisement required experience in the same or higher post in any department/board/corporation/company/statutory body/commission/authority of the Government of Haryana. The Court held that this implies a sanctioned post, and outsourced manpower under Part I does not satisfy this requirement. (Paras 17-19)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the first respondent, engaged as outsourced manpower under Part I of the Outsourcing Policy, is entitled to 0.5 mark for 'experience' under the Advertisement which required experience in the same or higher post in any department/board/corporation/company/statutory body/commission/authority of the Government of Haryana.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 06.12.2023 in LPA No. 562/2022 (O&M) and the judgment and order of the Single Judge dated 24.05.2022 in WPC No. 4402/2020 (O&M) are set aside. The writ petition filed by the first respondent stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Experience weightage in recruitment
- Outsourced manpower
- Sanctioned post
- Interpretation of 'post'
- Haryana Outsourcing Policy
- Part I vs Part II
- Circular dated 25.06.2014
- Experience certificate by service provider
