In Brief
A woman worked as outsourced clerk at a government agricultural university for eleven months under an outsourcing policy, then applied for a permanent clerk position. The recruitment advertisement offered marks for experience in government posts, but the university refused her 0.5 experience marks because she was not employed on a sanctioned (permanent) post. The Supreme Court held that an advertisement prescribing experience marks, without explicitly requiring a sanctioned post, must permit marks for work performed in the same role regardless of employment mode. Since she performed clerk work for a government body for over six months, she was entitled to experience marks. The Court affirmed that denying marks violated constitutional equality and non-discrimination principles.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.