Supreme Court Denies Age Relaxation to Outsourced Workers in Government Job Recruitment
The case of The Electronic Corporation of India Ltd. & Anr. vs. M. Shivani & Anr. revolves around the issue of whether employees engaged through an outsourcing agency can claim age relaxation benefits when applying for permanent positions in a government enterprise. The Supreme Court ruled that such outsourced workers were not entitled to age relaxation benefits under the recruitment notification.
Background of the Case
The respondents, M. Shivani and others, had been working at the Electronic Corporation of India Limited (ECIL) since 2010 through an outsourcing agency. In 2017, ECIL issued Notification No. 38 of 2017 to recruit candidates for the post of Tradesman-B (WG-III) in different trades.
According to the notification:
- The upper age limit for unreserved candidates was 28 years as of November 30, 2017.
- An age relaxation up to 40 years was available for candidates who had worked at ECIL as Senior Artisan/Junior Artisan on a tenure-based contract.
The respondents, having worked at ECIL through an outsourcing agency, applied for the age relaxation but were denied, as they did not meet the criteria set in the notification.
Legal Proceedings
Single Judge of the High Court
The respondents challenged the rejection before the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 382 of 2018. The Single Judge dismissed their plea on January 4, 2018, ruling that:
- The recruitment process was conducted online, and outsourced workers did not possess an employee code, making it impossible to grant them age relaxation.
- Since the recruitment was already underway, granting relief at the last moment would disrupt the process.
Division Bench of the High Court
The respondents then filed Writ Appeal No. 94 of 2018, where the Division Bench overturned the Single Judge’s ruling on March 8, 2018 and directed ECIL to permit the respondents to apply with age relaxation.
ECIL, aggrieved by this decision, appealed to the Supreme Court of India.
Arguments by the Petitioner (ECIL & Anr.)
- ECIL argued that there were two categories of contract employees:
- The first category comprised those directly employed by ECIL, who were allotted employee codes and service certificates.
- The second category comprised workers engaged through manpower supply agencies, with no direct employment relationship with ECIL.
- The age relaxation mentioned in the notification applied only to the first category and not to outsourced workers.
- Allowing age relaxation for outsourced workers would lead to claims from hundreds of similarly placed individuals.
- The Division Bench ignored the recruitment rules while granting relief.
Arguments by the Respondents (M. Shivani & Anr.)
- The respondents contended that they had worked at ECIL for years and were functionally similar to tenure-based contract employees.
- They argued that denying them age relaxation was discriminatory.
- Since they contributed to ECIL’s projects, they deserved equal consideration.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Judgment
The Supreme Court scrutinized the recruitment notification and the nature of the respondents’ employment. It made the following key observations:
- “The record indicates that the respondents were engaged through an outsourcing agency and were never directly employed by ECIL.”
- “The recruitment notification explicitly defined eligibility criteria, and the respondents did not meet those conditions.”
- “Extending age relaxation to outsourced workers would open the floodgates for similar claims, disrupting the recruitment process.”
- “The Division Bench’s decision was incorrect, as it failed to analyze the eligibility requirements properly.”
Final Judgment
The Supreme Court ruled as follows:
- The Division Bench’s judgment was set aside.
- The Single Judge’s order rejecting the respondents’ plea was restored.
- ECIL’s decision to deny age relaxation to outsourced workers was upheld.
Significance of the Judgment
This ruling establishes key legal principles:
1. Contractual Employment Distinctions
- Direct employees and outsourced workers are not the same for recruitment purposes.
- Employers can define eligibility conditions in recruitment notifications.
2. Limits on Judicial Intervention
- Courts should not interfere in recruitment processes unless there is clear illegality or discrimination.
- Intervention at the last stage of recruitment can disrupt the process.
3. Precedent for Outsourced Workers
- This ruling clarifies that outsourced workers do not automatically gain the same rights as direct employees.
- Companies can structure recruitment rules without extending benefits to outsourced staff.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in ECIL & Anr. vs. M. Shivani & Anr. ensures that recruitment processes remain fair and consistent with the rules outlined in job notifications. The judgment affirms that contractual and outsourced employees cannot claim benefits that are not explicitly granted under employment terms.
Petitioner Name: The Electronic Corporation of India Ltd. & Anr..Respondent Name: M. Shivani & Anr..Judgment By: Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice Indu Malhotra.Place Of Incident: Hyderabad, Telangana.Judgment Date: 08-03-2019.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: The Electronic Corpo vs M. Shivani & Anr. Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 08-03-2019.pdf
Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Uday Umesh Lalit
See all petitions in Judgment by Indu Malhotra
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments March 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments
See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
