Outsourced employees are ineligible for work experience weightage marks reserved for regular contractual appointees.

The Bihar Technical Service Commission (BTSC) issued Advertisement No. 02 of 2020 for 126 posts of Physiotherapist

Clause 4(iii) of the advertisement provided for a weightage of 5 marks per year (maximum 25 marks) for candidates with work experience in Government Hospitals or other State Government departments

The petitioner applied and was initially shown to have 57.466 marks, which included weightage for his service at Government Medical College and Hospital, Purnea, from 2010 to 2018

However, the BTSC subsequently withdrew these weightage marks, reducing his total to 32.4655, leading to his non-selection as the EBC (M) category cut-off was 54.4933

The Commission justified the withdrawal on the grounds that the petitioner was an "outsourced employee" engaged through the Indian Red Cross Society (an outsourcing agency) rather than a "contractual employee" recruited directly by the government through the prescribed legal procedure

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to weightage marks for work experience gained as an outsourced employee through the Indian Red Cross Society under Clause 4(iii) of the advertisement

2. Whether the Commission’s reliance on the State Government Resolution dated 22.01.2021 to deny weightage marks constituted an arbitrary change in the selection criteria midway through the process

The court primarily applied the Bihar Physiotherapist/Occupational Therapist Cadre Rules 2014 (as amended in 2019) and the Bihar Technical Service Commission Selection Procedure Rules 2018

It further relied on the General Administration Department (GAD) Resolution (Memo No. 1003 dated 22.01.2021), specifically Clause 5, which stipulates that weightage marks are only permissible for contractual employees recruited via a formal process—including sanctioned posts, advertisements, and selection committees—and explicitly excludes daily wagers and outsourced employees

The court also noted a prior judgment holding that the Indian Red Cross Society is not an instrumentality of the State

The court reasoned that the weightage marks provided under Clause 4(iii) must be interpreted in alignment with the State’s statutory rules and GAD resolutions

It found that the petitioner was never appointed on a contractual basis by the State; rather, he was "need-based" manpower provided by an outsourcing agency

The court emphasized that the GAD Resolution dated 22.01.2021 was issued prior to the petitioner’s application submission, meaning the criteria were not changed "midway" but were applied as they existed at the commencement of the process

Consequently, the petitioner did not meet the criteria for "regularly recruited contractual service" required to claim weightage

The court distinguished the Supreme Court precedents cited by the petitioner (e.g., Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University v. Monika), noting that in the present case, the government resolution explicitly barred outsourced employees from such benefits to maintain recruitment standards

The court answered the issues in the negative and dismissed the writ petition, affirming the selection list

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly