Ambiguity In Recruitment Criteria To Be Construed In Candidate's Favour: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that ambiguity or vagueness in eligibility criteria prescribed in a recruitment advertisement should be construed in favour of a candidate who prima facie possesses the requisite qualifications.

“…any ambiguity or vagueness in the prescribed qualification should be construed to the benefit of the candidate who prima facie appears to possess the requisite qualifications.”, observed a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chadrashekhar, while setting aside the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court's decision holding a candidate ineligible for appointment as a Librarian over unclarity regarding the experience for the advertised post, despite he being possessing a requisite qualification.

The Court heard appeals filed by one-Irfan Ahmad Hakak, the first wait-listed candidate for the post of Librarian under the Jammu and Kashmir Law Department.

Under a 2014 recruitment advertisement, the prescribed qualification was graduation with an M.Lib degree and three years' experience. Hakak held an M.LIS degree and worked as an Assistant Librarian while pursuing the course, and later as a Junior Professional Assistant.

The authorities initially recommended his appointment but later rejected it, disputing the experience gained during his M.LIS course.

The Central Administrative Tribunal directed the authorities to offer him the post. However, the High Court reversed that decision, holding that the requisite experience could be acquired only after obtaining the educational qualification.

Aggrieved Hakak moved to the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's decision.

Setting aside the impugned decision, the judgment authored by Justice Chandrashekhar noted the unclarity and vagueness in the recruitment advertisement, which, although it mentioned a three-year prior experience requirement, failed to clarify the “3 years' experience” nomenclature.

“…the prescribed qualification under the Advertisement was in fact not clear, rather quite vague. The Advertisement did not qualify “3 years' experience” of either having worked as Librarian or Library Assistant or on a similar post irrespective of the nomenclature. As the post of Library Assistant...requires a qualification of Graduation with B.Lib, a candidate could have gained experience while working on such post and qualified for the post of Librarian. But the respondents did not make any effort to clarify the ambiguity and vagueness in the prescribed qualification in the Advertisement.”, the Court observed.

The Court noted that despite the Respondents' having not raised any issue regarding the experience of the Appellant, the High Court “fell in error in expanding the scope of the dispute brought before it and held the appellant ineligible for appointment to the post of Librarian, whereas he is clearly entitled to seek appointment as the Librarian.”

As a result, the appeal was allowed, directing the Appellant the offer of the post of Librarian to the appellant with all consequential benefits.

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vishal Sinha, Adv. Ms. Tanya Srivastava, AOR Mr. Anmol Kheta, Adv. Mr. Tushar Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Shourya Dasgupta, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Parth Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR