Benefit Should Be Given To Candidate And Not Employer, If Advertisement Stipulates Vague Qualification Criteria: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anukriti Mishra
1 Dec 2024 10:00 AM IST
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that if an advertisement gives vague and ambiguous meaning with a possibility of varying interpretations about the qualification criteria of a post, the benefit should always be given to the candidate and not the employer.
The single-judge bench of Justice Sanjay Dwivedi observed, “Any advertisement creating ambiguity in regard to the qualification and taking shelter of the same, denial of liberty to the candidate, in my opinion does not seem to be proper. It is expected from the authority to make the clause clear and if prescribed qualification in the advertisement gives vague and ambiguous meaning emanating varying interpretations about the qualification criteria, the benefit should always be given to the candidate but not to the employer.”
In the present case, the petitioner had challenged the action of the respondents as they were not allowing the petitioner to participate in the interview which was scheduled pursuant an advertisement.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the requirement of advertisement, a retired Assistant Engineer having 15 years of experience on the post of Assistant Engineer, out of which 10 years of field experience is the necessary requirement and the petitioner fulfils the said criteria but was not called for interview. The petitioner contended that respondents had wrongly interpreted the clause and denied the petitioner the chance to appear for the interview.
As per the submission made by counsel for respondents, an application was submitted by the petitioner giving details therein that he had worked as an Assistant Engineer for 11 years 9 months and 27 days which fulfils the requirement. However, as per the respondents' counsel, the said period was not the total period worked on the post of Assistant Engineer but it includes the period when the petitioner has performed the duties of Assistant Engineer not in a substantive capacity but holding the additional charge of that post. He further submitted that the petitioner at the time of retirement was performing the duties as Executive Engineer and therefore, as per the rider imposed in the condition, the petitioner was disqualified as not entitled to apply under the said clause because at the time of retirement, he was performing his duties as Executive Engineer.
In order to determine whether the petitioner was wrongly denied or he was to be called for interview, the Court interpreted the said clauses of the advertisment. From bare reading of Clause 1, the court found that the requirement is that the candidate should be retired Assistant Engineer with the Civil Degree. Further, Clause 2 indicated that the 15 years' experience of working as Assistant Engineer which does not mean that the candidate must have substantively held the post of Assistant Engineer.
The court observed, “This is not disputed as the petitioner worked as an Assistant Engineer for a period of 15 years, although, in the later period of his service, he worked as an Incharge Executive Engineer but that cannot be a ground to deny the claim of the petitioner because it was a higher qualification for the petitioner to hold the post of In-charge Executive Engineer because he was substantively promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer…The basic object of the clause can be interpreted that the requirement was of experience of 15 years as an Assistant Engineer and merely because petitioner being an Assistant Engineer performed his duties for some period as In-charge Executive Engineer, it cannot be a disqualification for the petitioner.”
The court then looked into the exclusion clause which indicates that “any candidate who has retired from the higher post than that of Assistant Engineer (कायुरत रर्हत र्हयु)”. However, the petitioner was never promoted to the post of Executive Engineer and this exclusion clause would not be applicable to him because he retired as an Assistant Engineer although he was In-charge Executive Engineer at the time of retirement. “There is a drastic difference in the first part of the qualification and the part of exclusion clause.”, the Court said.
Thus, the court inferred that the petitioner having an experience of Assistant Engineer for more than 15 years and retired from the post of Assistant Engineer but not from the post of Executive Engineer, was wrongly declared ineligible to participate in the interview. “His qualification of working on higher post of Executive Engineer cannot be treated to be a disqualification for him.”, the Court said.
The court further observed that the said advertisement lacked in “clarity, precision and is couched in a language which keeps the candidates guessing as to its true impact cannot be countenanced in law.”
Therefore, the court allowed the present petition directing the respondents to accept the application of the petitioner and arrange a fresh interview for him in which he may be called and thereafter final decision be taken for selecting him to the post.
Case Title: Birendra Singh Yadav Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others, Writ Petition No. 31629 OF 2024
