Service Law – Termination – Respondent no.2 invited applications for the post of Company Secretary – Advertisement provided for five years post qualification mandatory experience as a Company Secretary as on 30.11.2013 in a PSU/Private Company of repute – Appellant applied for the post of Company Secretary and was appointed to the post of Company Secretary – Appellant’s service terminated by respondent no.2 on the ground that she did not have the requisite five years’ experience for the post of Company Secretary – Challenge by appellant before the High Court, dismissed – Held: As per appellant she was working as Assistant Company Secretary for the period between June 2008 to May 2010 in Utkal Investments Limited, as Management Trainee in the Delhi Stock Exchange Association Limited for the period between April 2005 to June 2006, and as Management Trainee in ONGC for the period between May 2003 to June 2004 – Her appointment as Management Trainee cannot be equated and/or considered as appointment ‘as’ a Company Secretary – Word ‘as’ used in the advertisement should be given a literal meaning – It cannot be said that the appellant had, while working as a ‘Management Trainee’, functioned ‘as’ a ‘Company Secretary – Word ‘as’ and the words ‘experience as Company Secretary’ used in the advertisement are very clear and means that the candidate ought to be appointed and worked ‘as’ a Company Secretary – Appellant had no experience of five years ‘as Company Secretary and she did not fulfil the eligibility criteria of having five years post qualification experience ‘as’ Company Secretary as on 30.11.2013 – Services of the appellant rightly terminated.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 As per the case of the appellant she was working as Assistant Company Secretary for the period between June 2008 to May 2010 in Utkal Investments Limited and she was working as Management Trainee in the Delhi Stock Exchange Association Limited for the period between April 2005 to June 2006, and as the Management Trainee in ONGC for the period between May 2003 to June 2004. Her appointment as Management Trainee cannot be equated and/or considered as appointment ‘as’ a Company Secretary. [Para 7.2][670-D-E]
1.2 The word ‘as’ used in the advertisement should be given a literal meaning. The respondent is the author of the advertisement and they are the best person to consider what they meant by using the word ‘as’. It is the specific case on behalf of the respondents that the intention behind the advertisement was that the applicant must have been appointed ‘as’ a Company Secretary in PSU/Company of repute and functioned as such for five years to be eligible for appointment. According to the respondent, the purpose was that the person should have held the position of a Company Secretary in a PSU/Company of repute and discharged the statutory functions as such i.e. should have held the position of responsibility. Therefore, when the word ‘as’ is specifically used, the same is to be considered strictly and therefore the experience of the appellant, while working as a ‘Management Trainee’ cannot be considered as an experience of working ‘as’ a Company Secretary and/or it cannot be said that she was appointed ‘as’ a Company Secretary. If the period during which the appellant had worked as a ‘Management Trainee’ is excluded, in that case, admittedly, the appellant would not be fulfilling the requisite eligibility criteria of having been appointed ‘as’ a Company Secretary in a PSU/Company of repute. It cannot be said that the appellant had, while working as a ‘Management Trainee’, functioned ‘as’ a ‘Company Secretary. If submission on behalf of the appellant is accepted that by performing duties as ‘Management Trainee’ she was also performing some duties as ‘Company Secretary’ and therefore she can be said to have fulfilled the eligibility criteria of having been appointed ‘as’ a Company Secretary, in that case, it would be against the intent. If the intention was such, in that case, the wording in the advertisement should have been that the candidate should have the experience of the similar nature of work as “Company Secretary”. In the advertisement, it has been specifically and categorically stated that a candidate shall have post qualification experience of five years ‘as’ Company Secretary. The word used “experience as Company Secretary” has to be given meaning that a candidate must have been appointed ‘as’ a Company Secretary and shall have actually worked ‘as’ a Company Secretary for five years. Giving other meaning would be changing the eligibility criteria as mentioned in the advertisement. The appellant has no experience of five years ‘as’ Company Secretary, as she was appointed and/or worked as ‘Management Trainee’ or ‘Assistant Company Secretary’. [Paras 7.3, 7.4][670-F-H; 671-A-E]
1.3 In the present case, the word ‘as’ and the words ‘experience as Company Secretary’ used in the advertisement are very clear and it means the candidate ought to be appointed and worked as such ‘as’ a Company Secretary. As appellant did not fulfil the eligibility criteria of having five years post qualification experience ‘as’ Company Secretary as on 30.11.2013, the services of the appellant have rightly been terminated. [Paras 7.6, 8][672E-G]
Dr. Asim Kumar Bose v. Union of India and Others (1983) 1 SCC 345 : [1983] 2 SCR 16 – distinguished.
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.