Benefit Should Always Be Given To Candidate & Not To Employer When Prescribed Qualification In Advertisement Is Vague & Ambiguous: Madhya Pradesh HC
The Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that it is expected from the Authority to make the clause of the advertisements 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.
The Petitioner had approached the High Court challenging the action of the respondents for not allowing the petitioner to participate in the interview pertaining to the post of General Manager (Contractual) in the Project Implementation Unit of Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority which was scheduled pursuant to the advertisement dated August 23, 2024.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Dwivedi said, “The advertisement (Annexure P/1), in my opinion, is lacking in clarity, precision and is couched in a language which keeps the candidates guessing as to its true impact cannot be countenanced in law.”
Advocate Mahendra Pateriya represented the petitioner while Government Advocate Girish Kekre represented the respondent-State.
The respondents submitted their reply stating therein that in pursuance to advertisement and conditions contained therein, the petitioner did not fulfill the requisite period of service on the post of Assistant Engineer to be called in interview for appointment on contract basis after retirement to the post of General Manager (Contractual) in the Project Implementation Unit of Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority. It was further contended that the duration of 11 years 9 months and 27 days which fulfills the requirement but the said period is not the total period worked on the post of Assistant Engineer. 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.
For the petitioners, Pateriya submitted that as per the requirement of advertisement the respective clause very clearly provides that 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 fulfills the same but was not called for interview.
Going through the clause in the advertisement, the Bench observed that as per the requirement of the said clause, the petitioner fell within the category of retired civil degree holder of 15 years of working experience as Assistant Engineer. The Bench noted that the requirement was that the candidate should be a retired Assistant Engineer with the Civil Degree. The clause indicated that the15 years experience of working as Assistant Engineer but the same didn’t mean that the candidate must have substantively held 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 Bench said.
Considering the fact that the petitioner was never promoted to the post of Executive Engineer, the Bench observed that the 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.
“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 especially under the existing circumstance when apparently the basic object of the respondents is that the said post is available for the retired Assistant Engineer having Degree of Civil and 15 years of work experience as an Assistant Engineer. Thus, denying a candidate on the basis of vague interpretation of prescribed qualification, in any manner, cannot be said to be proper”, the Bench held.
Thus, allowing the Petition, the Bench directed 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 which has been advertised as per Annexure P/1.
Cause Title: Birendra Singh Yadav v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others [Case No. Writ Petition No. 31629 OF 2024]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Mahendra Pateriya
Respondents: Government Advocate Girish Kekre, Advocate Rohit Jain
