Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 20.07.2026
SANJAY KUMAR MEENA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Suresa Chandra and Mr. Utsav Saxena, Advocates.
Through: Ms. Puja Dewan and Mr. Uday Seth, Advocates for R-1, 4 & 5.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA TEJAS KARIA, J. (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The Application stands disposed of. CM APPL. 45028/2026 (Condonation of delay)
3. This Application has been filed on behalf of the Appellant under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking condonation of delay of 9 days in re-filing the present Appeal.
4. For the reasons stated in the Application, the same is allowed. The delay of 9 days in re-filing the present Appeal is hereby condoned.
5. The Application stands disposed of.
6. The present Letters Patent Appeal assails the order dated 04.05.2026 (“Impugned Order”) passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C)5967/2026 (“Writ Petition”) filed by the Appellant.
7. The brief factual matrix leading to the filing of the present Appeal is as under: 7.[1] Respondent No. 3 issued an advertisement dated 10.11.2023 (“Advertisement”), inviting applications for the post of Assistant Electric Fitter (“Post”), which prescribed the essential qualification as either a diploma in Electrical Engineering with one year of experience, or an ITI qualification in Electrical Trade with two years of professional experience in the erection/maintenance of transformers, HT and LT switchgears, and filter machines. The Appellant, being ITI-qualified in Electrical Trade, submitted his application for the Post along with an experience certificate dated 06.03.2023 (“Experience Certificate”) issued by Primaeval Solutions Pvt. Ltd., the Appellant’s former employer (“Employer”), for the period from 07.01.2019 to 24.02.2022. 7.[2] Respondent No. 3, thereafter, declared the results, in which the Appellant was provisionally selected and was required to submit his e-dossier along with all requisite documents, including the Experience Certificate. 7.[3] Thereafter, Respondent No. 1 conducted physical verification at the Appellant’s stated place of work. Respondent No. 1 further, vide letter dated 15.12.2025, sought confirmation from the Employer regarding the genuineness of the Experience Certificate. 7.[4] Pursuant to the letter dated 15.12.2025, the Employer, vide letter dated 18.12.2025 addressed to Respondent No. 1, stated that the Appellant had worked with the Employer’s subcontractor on a temporary basis from 07.01.2019 to 24.02.2022 as a supervisor, and had been provided accommodation, food and lodging expenses by the Employer’s sub-contractor at various site locations in Sikar, Rajasthan during the said period. The letter dated 18.12.2025 further stated that the Appellant was not paid any salary during his engagement with the Employer and was working to “get training and learn the things for his own work”. 7.[5] Vide letter dated 21.01.2026 addressed to the Employer, Respondent No. 1 sought additional verification and details regarding the Appellant’s employment particulars, including documents such as Employees’ Provident Fund (“EPF”) statements, attendance records and salary slips. The letter dated 21.01.2026 was replied to by the Employer vide communication dated 03.02.2026, reiterating the contents of the earlier letter dated 18.12.2025. 7.[6] Pursuant to the communication dated 03.02.2026, Respondent No. 1 issued the communication dated 26.02.2026 cancelling the Appellant’s candidature for the Post on the ground that the Experience Certificate was not supported by any further documentary evidence from the Employer. 7.[7] Aggrieved by the communication dated 26.02.2026, the Appellant filed the Writ Petition, inter alia, on the grounds that food and lodging had been provided in lieu of salary, thereby constituting non-cash remuneration and evidencing a real and subsisting professional engagement; that the Advertisement did not prescribe production of salary slips, EPF statements or similar documents as a condition for recognising professional experience; and that a beneficial interpretation ought to be adopted while construing the requirement of “professional experience” where in-kind benefits substitute formal wage and EPF structures. 7.[8] The learned Single Judge, vide the Impugned Order, dismissed the Writ Petition, observing that the Appellant was undergoing a form of training or internship at the project sites of the Employer; that recruitment under the Advertisement required not merely participation or exposure, but professional experience in specified technical works; and that the material placed on record did not demonstrate that the Appellant had acquired such experience in the manner contemplated under the Advertisement. 7.[9] Aggrieved by the Impugned Order, the Appellant has preferred the present Appeal.
8. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the communication dated 26.02.2026 cancelled the Appellant’s candidature solely on the ground that the Experience Certificate was not supported by documentary evidence. It was submitted that the Advertisement did not require production of salary slips, EPF statements or attendance registers for establishing professional experience and, therefore, such documents could not have been insisted upon as an eligibility requirement.
9. It was further submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the requirement of “professional experience” could not be restricted only to formal salaried employment, particularly when the Advertisement did not prescribe any such condition. It was contended that the Impugned Order, by adopting a restrictive interpretation of “professional experience” and “paid” work in a context where the Advertisement is silent, effectively applies a non-beneficial canon of construction to a matter engaging labour-welfare considerations.
10. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the continuous provision of food and lodging at project sites was analogous to house accommodation and concessional supply of foodgrains or amenities, and could not be disregarded while assessing whether the Appellant’s experience was professional in nature. It was further submitted that non-payment of monetary salary or absence of EPF records was, at the highest, a technical feature of the engagement and could not be relied upon to negate otherwise genuine and relevant experience.
11. Reliance was placed on Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar & Anr. v. Monika & Ors., Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 911, on behalf of the Appellant to contend that, in the absence of an express bar in the recruitment rules, experience gained through nonstandard modes of engagement ought not to be excluded from consideration.
12. We have heard learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the material placed on record. The principal question that arises for consideration in the present Appeal is whether the experience claimed by the Appellant under the Experience Certificate satisfies the requirement of “professional experience” prescribed under the Advertisement.
13. The contention of learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Advertisement did not require production of salary slips, EPF statements or similar documents and, therefore, Respondent No. 1 could not insist upon such documents during the verification process cannot be accepted as the Advertisement expressly required “professional experience”. The requirement to furnish supporting documents to substantiate the Experience Certificate cannot be construed as the introduction of a new eligibility condition as it forms part of the verification process undertaken to ascertain the genuineness of the “professional experience” claimed by the Appellant.
14. During the verification process, the Employer failed to provide any satisfactory response to the inquiry made by Respondent No. 1 regarding the genuineness of the Experience Certificate. In the communications dated 18.12.2025 and 03.02.2026 issued by the Employer, it was stated that the Appellant had approached the Employer for training and learning purposes, had worked on a temporary basis with the Employer’s sub-contractor in lieu of food and accommodation during the relevant period, and had not been paid any salary.
15. In these circumstances, the learned Single Judge observed that the said communications did not establish a relationship of employment in the conventional sense but indicated that the Appellant was undergoing a form of training or internship at the project sites of the Employer.
16. The reliance placed by the Appellant on Monika (supra) is not helpful, as the said decision is factually distinguishable. In Monika (supra), the candidate had acquired experience while working through an outsourcing agency in the university concerned, and her candidature was rejected solely on the ground that such experience had not been gained while working directly under the university concerned. In that context, the Supreme Court held that the mode of employment was not the primary consideration and that the nature of work performed by the candidate was of greater relevance.
17. In the present case, however, the Appellant’s candidature was rejected after the process of verification was undertaken by Respondent No. 1, during which the Employer, by its letters dated 18.12.2025 and 03.02.2026, stated that the Appellant had approached it for training and learning purposes, had worked with the Employer’s sub-contractor on a temporary basis, and had not received any salary during the period of engagement.
18. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that the Appellant failed to satisfy the requirement of “professional experience” prescribed under the Advertisement by relying solely on the Experience Certificate, without furnishing any supporting material. Accordingly, no ground is made out for interference with the Impugned Order.
19. Accordingly, the present Appeal is dismissed. The pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
TEJAS KARIA, J DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ JULY 20, 2026