Experience weightage is unavailable absent proof of valid contractual appointment under prescribed government resolutions.

The petitioner applied for the post of Fisheries Development Officer pursuant to Advertisement No. 03/2021 issued by the Bihar Technical Service Commission (BTSC).

The advertisement provided five marks for each year of relevant contractual work experience, subject to a maximum of 25 marks.

The petitioner claimed more than five years’ experience as a Kisan Salahkar and produced an experience certificate and pay slip issued by the District Agriculture Officer, Madhubani.

Although he appeared for counselling held from 20 to 24 December 2021 and submitted the relevant documents, the BTSC did not award him experience marks.

The BTSC stated that Kisan Salahkar service did not qualify as contractual service under clause 3(ii) of the advertisement and assessed the petitioner’s total merit at 50.625 marks, whereas the last selected candidate in the Backward Class category had 55.0312 marks.

The Court directed him to produce documents establishing that his appointment complied with those resolutions, but he produced only his appointment letter and the Kisan Salahkar Selection Guidelines.

Whether the petitioner’s experience as a Kisan Salahkar constituted qualifying contractual work experience under clause 3(ii) of Advertisement No. 03/2021, entitling him to five marks per completed year, subject to the prescribed maximum?

Whether the petitioner established that his appointment was a valid contractual appointment made in accordance with the General Administration Department’s resolutions dated 18 July 2007 and 22 January 2021?

Whether the BTSC was required to add the claimed experience marks and reconsider or recommend the petitioner for appointment as Fisheries Development Officer?

The Court applied the Bihar Animal and Fish Resources (Fish) Service Recruitment Rules, 2007, framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, particularly the recruitment procedure contemplated by Rule 6.

It also applied clause 3(ii) of Advertisement No. 03/2021, which granted five marks per year, up to 25 marks, to persons appointed on a contractual basis for work relating to fisheries or agriculture in the specified government departments or offices.

The Court relied on clauses 4 and 5 of the General Administration Department Resolution contained in Memo No. 1003 dated 22 January 2021, under which weightage and related concessions are available only to duly appointed contractual employees and not to illegal appointees, daily-wage workers, or persons engaged through an outside service provider.

The resolution further requires, for a valid contractual appointment, that the post be sanctioned, the appointee possess the prescribed qualification, the post be advertised, a selection or screening committee and selection process be adopted, the appointment be made by the competent authority, and reservation principles be followed.

The resolution restricts the benefit to appointment to the same post or an equivalent post for which the contractual service was rendered.

The Court also considered the earlier General Administration Department Resolution contained in Memo No. 2401 dated 18 July 2007, which was identified in the 2021 resolution as prescribing the relevant procedure for valid contractual appointments.

The Court found that the petitioner’s entitlement depended not merely on the existence of an experience certificate, but on proof that his service was rendered pursuant to a valid contractual appointment satisfying the conditions in the 2007 and 2021 resolutions.

The petitioner asserted that Kisan Salahkars were contractual appointees, but the materials produced—his appointment letter and the Kisan Salahkar Selection Guidelines—did not demonstrate that his appointment had been made in accordance with Memo No. 2401 dated 18 July 2007 or that it satisfied the requirements of clause 5 of Memo No. 1003 dated 22 January 2021.

In the absence of proof regarding a sanctioned post, advertisement, prescribed selection process, competent appointing authority, and compliance with reservation requirements, the Court held that the petitioner had not established a qualifying contractual appointment.

Consequently, his experience as Kisan Salahkar could not be counted for the weightage contemplated by clause 3(ii) of the advertisement.

Since his merit score without experience marks was 50.625, below the relevant selection cut-off of 55.0312 marks, the BTSC’s refusal to award experience marks and recommend him was not interfered with.

It held that the petitioner failed to prove that his Kisan Salahkar appointment was a valid contractual appointment under the applicable Government resolutions and, therefore, he was not entitled to experience weightage under clause 3(ii) of Advertisement No. 03/2021.

The writ petition seeking addition of experience marks and issuance of a selection or recommendation order was dismissed.

Any pending interlocutory application was also disposed of.