Working “For” An Organisation Cannot Be Equated With Working “In” It For Eligibility In Recruitment Process: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that working 'for' an organization cannot be equated with working 'in' an organization”, and 'employment' and 'empanelment' are to be treated differently when interpreting recruitment rules.
Justice Manoj Jain, while dealing the plea of an Assistant Director (Legal) in Bureau of Indian Standards, held,
"Undoubtedly, the key words appearing in the advertisement are 'Three years' experience in the relevant field in Central/ State…undertaking. I would lay strong emphasis on the word “in” used in the aforesaid criteria. A person may represent a governmental body before a Court of law but that would not mean that he is also working in such organization or governmental body.”
Petitioner, a law graduate, was appointed to the abovementioned post after clearing the recruitment process and undergoing verification by an Executive Committee.
She was however terminated during her probation period on the ground that her work-experience was questionable.
Upon perusing the facts, the High Court noted that Petitioner was never working in IEC University and was rather continuously practicing as an advocate. It said the usage of “in” in the advertisement suggests the real intent and objective of the recruiter— BIS.
“Unquestionably, “working for organization” cannot be equated with “working in organization”. Undoubtedly, foregoing discussion would make it evident that the work experience should have been with respect to working in a governmental agency. Had the position been thrown open for mere practicing advocates, it could have been easily mentioned by BIS in the advertisement itself and, therefore, merely because a candidate is a practicing advocate and, in such capacity, such candidate is also representing any governmental agency would not mean that such candidate meets the eligibility criteria.”
Nevertheless, since the Petitioner had undergone rigorous selection process and verification with respect to her eligibility and experience credentials, the Court said,
“BIS was, though, having reservation and uncertainty about her such work-experience, for the reasons best known to them, they chose to ignore the same and offered her employment…The Committee, after thorough deliberation, took conscious decision and held her fit for being shortlisted. If the Committee was not satisfied with her work-experience certificate or was of the view that it is not in synchronization with the eligibility criteria described in the advertisement, it should have, then and there, declared her unfit.”
According to BIS, Petitioner was on probation and her termination is without any stigma.
Disagreeing, the High Court observed,
“The purpose of putting someone on probation is to judge capacity, capability and suitability of such person under probation…when a probationer's appointment is terminated, the message, direct or indirect, is that probationer is unfit for the job…Therefore, generally speaking, stigma, would, be inherent in any such termination.”
Thus it held that even though a probationer would not have any such vested right to continue, the manner of termination, for all purposes, has the trappings of stigma.
As such, it held that in absence of any misrepresentation on Petitioner's part, she cannot now be terminated.
Appearance: For the Petitioner: Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Senior Advocate, Mr. Jatan Singh, Senior Advocate, Mr. K.K. Mannan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rana S. Biswas, Mr. Vivek Jain and Mr. Puneet Parihar, Advocates For the Respondents: Mr. S.D. Sanjay, ASG with Mr. Gaurav Sharma, SPCUOI, Mr. Sachin Singh, Advocate and Ms. Vidhi Gupta (GP) for R-1/UOI, Mr. Tarun Agarwal, Ms. Parthvi Ahuja, Mr. Akshat Agarwal, Mr. Bhaskar Agarwal, Mr. Shrey Patnaik, Mr. Ritwik Batra and Ms. Mitali Karwa, Advocates for R-2 & R-3
Case title: XX v. Union of India
Case no.: W.P.(C) 9931/2025