Whenever Conflict Arises Between The Powerful & The Powerless, Courts Should Lean In Favour Of The Weaker & Poorer Sections: SC
The Supreme Court emphasised that the State instrumentalities have the duty to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting, as effectively as it may, a social order, in which justice – social, economic, and political – shall inform all the institutions of national life and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities, and opportunities.
The Court emphasised thus in a Civil Appeal filed by Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar against the Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice R. Mahadevan observed, “An underlying current throughout the Constitution is the theme of “social justice”. The Preamble, as well as Article 38 of the Constitution, enjoins upon the State instrumentalities the duty to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting, as effectively as it may, a social order, in which justice – social, economic and political – shall inform all the institutions of national life and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities."
The Bench remarked 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."
AOR Jitin Chaturvedi and Advocate Manu Mridul represented the Appellants while AOR Nishant Verma and Advocate Jayprakash Bansilal Somani represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts -
The Appellant University was established in 1970 under the Haryana and Punjab Agricultural Universities Act. In 2009, Haryana introduced an outsourcing policy for contract-based engagements. The University adopted this policy in 2010 and thereafter, in 2017, the University awarded a contract to two service agencies for manpower. The Respondent was engaged as a clerk-cum-typist from May 5, 2017 to March 31, 2018 and she received an experience certificate countersigned by the University.
The University advertised Group-C posts, allocating 5 marks for experience and hence, the Respondent applied, scoring 75 marks, but missed selection. Being aggrieved, she filed a Writ Petition challenging the experience marks allocation. The Single Judge ruled in favour of the Respondent by granting 0.5 marks for experience. The Division Bench affirmed this decision. Resultantly, the University was before the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, noted, “It cannot be gainsaid that even though the modalities for engagement of two individuals for executing similar nature of work could differ, there can be no quarrel that none can gain experience without being asked to work.”
The Court said that, one vital difference in working on a sanctioned post as a permanent employee and being employed in the exigencies of administration without having a right to post is that in the former, the appointee enjoys procedural safeguards bringing in a sense of security of service in him while in the latter the individual concerned may not have any such sense of security.
“But, in case, both perform the work of clerks, the experience gained would not be much at a variance subject, of course, that the job requirement is not too different. It would also be relevant to bear in mind stipulations in the advertisement if, at all, they call for any special requirement for marks to be secured for experience, viz. previous service rendered on a sanctioned post or if salary, as is specified, has to be received for service rendered in order to be eligible to apply”, it added.
The Court enunciated that the State policy, specifying that the individual must have worked on a post equal to or higher than the advertised posts in any of the enumerated departments to secure marks for experience, also reflects the State’s belief that the experience in such departments is directly relevant to the advertised posts.
“It is not open for the University to now deny marks on the basis of a technical procedural deviation that the experience certificate was not issued by the University, but rather by the service provider. While we accept the contention raised by the University that the certificate was per se not issued by it, the fact that it was countersigned by the Head of the Department validates the first respondent’s claim that she had indeed gained certain experience which deserved to be given credit”, it further observed.
The Court said that the refusal to award any mark for experience to the Respondent would go against the grain of the Constitutional duty of ensuring equality and securing social justice for the deprived.
“Bound as we are to apply the Constitutional mandate prescribed in Articles 14 and 16 read with the preambular promise of securing social justice, we hold that non-grant of mark for experience to the first respondent was not proper and legal”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the Appeal and affirmed the impugned 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.
