The Supreme Court stated that when there is a conflict between the strong and the weak, the courts should support the weaker and poorer groups.

The Supreme Court highlighted that state agencies must work to enhance the well-being of the people by establishing and safeguarding a social order where justice—social, economic, and political—guides all national institutions and aims to reduce inequalities in status, resources, and opportunities. This statement was made in a Civil Appeal by Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, challenging a decision from the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The two-Judge Bench, consisting of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice R. Mahadevan, noted that the theme of “social justice” runs throughout the Constitution. The Preamble and Article 38 require state agencies to promote the welfare of the people by ensuring a social order that prioritizes justice and seeks to eliminate disparities.

The Bench stated that when there is a conflict between the powerful and the powerless, social justice directs the Courts to support the weaker and poorer groups when the situation is balanced. AOR Jitin Chaturvedi and Advocate Manu Mridul represented the Appellants, while AOR Nishant Verma and Advocate Jayprakash Bansilal Somani represented the Respondents.

The Appellant University was founded in 1970 under the Haryana and Punjab Agricultural Universities Act. In 2009, Haryana implemented a policy for outsourcing contract work. The University adopted this policy in 2010 and, in 2017, awarded contracts to two service agencies for staffing. The Respondent worked as a clerk-cum-typist from May 5, 2017, to March 31, 2018, and received an experience certificate signed by the University. When the University advertised Group-C positions, it allocated 5 marks for experience. The Respondent applied and scored 75 marks but was not selected. Upset by this, she filed a Writ Petition to contest the experience marks allocation. The Single Judge ruled in her favor, granting her 0.5 marks for experience. The Division Bench upheld this ruling. Consequently, the University took the matter to the Apex Court. The Supreme Court observed that while the methods for hiring individuals for similar work may vary, it is clear that no one can gain experience without being assigned work.

The Court stated that a key difference between working in a sanctioned position as a permanent employee and being employed temporarily without a right to the position is that the former provides the appointee with procedural protections, creating a sense of job security. In contrast, the latter may not offer any such security. “However, if both individuals are performing clerical work, the experience gained would likely be similar, provided the job requirements are not too different. It is also important to consider the job advertisement’s requirements, especially if they specify any special criteria for experience, such as prior service in a sanctioned position or a specific salary that must have been earned to qualify for the application,” it added.

The Court explained that the State policy requires individuals to have worked in a position equal to or higher than the advertised roles in specified departments to earn experience marks. This reflects the State’s view that experience in these departments is relevant to the advertised positions. “The University cannot deny marks based on a minor procedural issue, such as the experience certificate not being issued by the University but by the service provider. While we acknowledge the University’s point that the certificate was not directly issued by it, the fact that it was countersigned by the Head of the Department supports the first respondent’s claim of having gained relevant experience that should be recognized,” it further noted.

The Court stated that not giving any points for experience to the Respondent would violate the Constitutional responsibility to promote equality and provide social justice for those in need. “We must follow the Constitutional requirements in Articles 14 and 16, along with the promise of social justice in the preamble. Therefore, we find that not awarding points for experience to the first respondent was incorrect and unlawful,” it concluded. As a result, the Apex Court rejected the Appeal and upheld the challenged Judgment.

Cause Title: Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar v. Monika & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 911)
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR Jitin Chaturvedi, Advocates Manu Mridul, and Pratap Singh Rawat.
Respondents: AOR Nishant Verma, Advocates Jayprakash Bansilal Somani, Rajnish Kumar, Manoj Kumar Chowdhary, Shisba Chawla, and Ekta Verma.