Outsource Agency's Recommendation Binding on Principal Employer; Arbitrary Denial of Joining Is Legally Unsustainable

The petitioners applied for the post of Resin/Timber Watcher after Respondents No. 1 to 3 (State) decided to fill 166 posts via a meeting on 15.09.2022.

The State entered into an agreement with Respondent No. 4 (an outsource agency) to recruit suitable personnel. Following interviews, the petitioners were recommended and issued appointment letters (Annexure P-1).

They reported for duty between 24.09.2022 and 26.09.2022, and were directed to report to a work-shed on 15.10.2022, where they were told to wait due to the Model Code of Conduct.

Subsequently, the State refused to let them join, claiming they failed to submit educational and fitness certificates within seven days and did not meet field-job criteria.

The petitioners alleged discrimination as others recommended alongside them were allowed to join.

1. Whether the action of Respondents No. 1 to 3 in denying appointment to the petitioners, despite their selection and recommendation by the authorized outsource agency, was legally sustainable.

2. Whether the petitioners were discriminated against in comparison to other similarly situated recommended candidates.

The court applied the principle of administrative fairness and the doctrine of Estoppel/Legitimate Expectation, holding that when a State department outsources recruitment to an agency (Respondent No. 4), and that agency conducts interviews and assesses eligibility, the department is under a legal obligation to honor those appointments.

The court applied the principle of Non-Discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution, noting that the State cannot arbitrarily exclude certain recommended candidates while appointing others from the same list.

The court reasoned that since the task of testing eligibility and qualification was specifically outsourced to Respondent No. 4, the State's subsequent claim that petitioners did not meet the criteria lacked merit.

The appointment letters (Annexure R-1) explicitly stated that the petitioners were selected based on interviews and eligibility.

The court dismissed the State’s defense regarding the seven-day submission deadline, noting that the petitioners’ pursuit of litigation proved their seriousness toward the job.

The court found that the State had discriminated against the petitioners because other candidates recommended by the same agency were permitted to join while the petitioners were blocked without valid justification.

The court also noted that the contract between the State and the outsource agency had been extended until 31.08.2027, removing any contractual barrier to the petitioners' engagement.

The court directed Respondents No. 1 to 3 to forthwith permit the petitioners to join their posts effective from 01.07.2026, clarifying that the appointment would be prospective as the underlying outsource agreement remains valid until August 2027.

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.