An ad for Group-C posts at Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar offered 0.5 marks for each year of experience in a similar post or a higher post, with the limit set at 5 marks. The respondent scored 75 but could not make the cut-off only because her outsourced experience was not taken into account. However, when she went to the High Court, the latter awarded her 0.5 marks and directed that the University consider her without impacting those who had been appointed.
The University, however, argued that the outsourced work done by the respondent cannot be considered experience on a sanctioned post and that her certificate was not issued by the University but by Outsourcing Enterprises. Therefore, it would violate the rules of selection. Also, it would go against the outsourcing policy of the University which did not allow certifying of experience for outsourced employees. Additionally, the respondent’s selection would go against what was stated in the ad as criteria for eligibility.
Contradicting this, the Respondent maintained that her work was no less than what was done by regular employees. She argued that the experience criteria did not clearly state that work on a ‘sanctioned’ post was mandatory. Her argument was that it was her Constitutional right to be given marks for her experience, even if was from outsourced work.
The Supreme Court ruled in her favour saying that marks cannot be denied to her simply because she worked as an outsourced resource. As per the apex court, if her duties were in alignment with the sanctioned post, she was eligible for marks, even if she wasn’t appointed on the sanctioned post. Therefore, the SC bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice R. Mahadevan stated that she “cannot be denied the benefit of mark for experience merely because at the time of appointment as outsourced manpower, she was not appointed on a sanctioned post.”
