Service Law – Appointment – Appellant invited applications for the post of Assistant Grade-II (Hindi) by publishing advertisement – Respondent applied – Short-listed – However, she did not receive the final letter of appointment – Writ petition filed by the respondent – Dismissed – Division Bench allowed the appeal – Plea of appellant that the respondent was not finally selected as she did not produce the certificate of one year’s experience of translation from English to Hindi and vice-versa – Held: In the advertisement there was no such requirement – What was provided in the advertisement was that a candidate must have one year’s experience of translation from English to Hindi and vice-versa along with the other qualifications – Advertisement did not provide that a candidate shall produce the certificate of experience along with the application – Division Bench rightly observed that nonproduction of the certificate along with the application cannot be said to be fatal to the case of the respondent and on that ground she could not have been denied the appointment, if otherwise found meritorious – Management at the time of verification of the documents, did not thought it fit to call upon the respondent to produce any additional documentary evidence in support of her experience – If the management would have called for such additional documentary evidence, the respondent would have produced the certificates, which she subsequently did produce before the High Court – Appellant has not doubted the certificates dated. 14.01.2015 and 18.07.2016 issued by the erstwhile employer of the respondent – Division Bench rightly held, considering the aforesaid two certificates, that the respondent was having one year’s experience of translation from English to Hindi and vice-versa and therefore fulfilled all the requisite essential requirements/qualifications and therefore was required to be considered for appointment on merits – Appellant to consider the case of the respondent for appointment on merits, if all other conditions stand satisfied.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The FCI have not doubted the certificates dated 14.01.2015 and 18.07.2016 issued by the erstwhile employer of the original writ petitioner. In the advertisement there was no requirement to produce the certificate of one year’s experience along with the application. What was provided in the advertisement is that a candidate must have one year’s experience of translation from English to Hindi and vice-versa along with the other qualifications. The advertisement does not provide specifically and/or provide that a candidate shall produce the certificate of experience along with the application. Therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly observed that non-production of one year’s experience certificate along with the application cannot be said to be fatal to the case of the original writ petitioner and on that ground the original writ petitioner could not have been denied the appointment, if otherwise she is found to be meritorious. [Paras 8, 9][905-C-G]
1.2 At the time of verification of the documents, the original writ petitioner was not informed/told that the relieving-cumexperience letter dated 27.08.2014 is not sufficient to establish the essential requirement of one year’s experience. The original writ petitioner was also not told/informed at the time of verification of documents on 18.01.2016 that certificate of one year’s experience is lacking. Clause 33 of the advertisement, which was also considered by the Division Bench of the High Court, provides that the management reserves the right to call for any additional documentary evidence in support of educational qualification & experience of the applicant. The management at the time of verification of the documents, did not thought it fit to call upon the applicant to produce any additional documentary evidence in support of her experience. The management could have called for any additional documentary evidence in support of experience of the applicant. If the management would have called for the additional documentary evidence in support of experience of the applicant, in that case, the original writ petitioner would have produced the certificates, which were subsequently produced before the High Court. The FCI has not doubted the certificates dated 14.01.2015 and 18.07.2016 issued by the erstwhile employer of the original writ petitioner. Therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly observed and held considering the aforesaid two certificates that the original writ petitioner was having one year’s experience of translation from English to Hindi and vice-versa and therefore fulfilled all the requisite essential requirements/qualifications and therefore she was required to be considered for appointment on merits. [Paras 10 and 10.1][906-B-G]
1.3 The Division Bench has rightly set aside the action of the FCI in rejecting the case of the original writ petitioner and rightly directed the FCI to consider the case of the original writ petitioner for appointment on merits, if all other conditions stand satisfied. [Para 12][909-D-E]
Charles K. Skaria v. Dr. C. Mathew (1980) 2 SCC
752 : [1980] 3 SCR 71 ; Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, Jee and Others (2005) 9 SCC 779 : [2004] 5 Suppl. SCR 79 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.