Employment LawAmbiguity in Employment Criteria: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Fairness, Orders Fresh Interview for Disqualified Candidate

The Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, in the case of Birendra Singh Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Writ Petition No. 31629 of 2024 decided on 18 November 2024 held that the Petitioner was wrongfully excluded from an interview for the post of General Manager (Contractual) based on an erroneous interpretation of eligibility and exclusion clauses in the advertisement.

The High Court noted that the ambiguities in the advertisement should benefit the candidate, not the employer, and thus directed the Respondents to conduct a fresh interview for the Petitioner.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Mr. Birendra Singh Yadav (hereinafter referred to as “the Petitioner”), filed a writ petition challenging the action of the Respondents in disallowing his participation in an interview for the post of General Manager (Contractual) in the Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority. The interview was scheduled based on an advertisement dated 23.08.2024.

The Petitioner claimed to meet the eligibility criteria stipulated in the advertisement. Specifically, he argued that he had over 15 years of experience as an Assistant Engineer, including 10 years of field experience, which were necessary for the post. Despite this, he was excluded from the interview process.

The Respondents submitted that the Petitioner’s total service as Assistant Engineer fell short of the required duration. They argued that some of his service period included duties performed under additional charge and not in a substantive capacity. Furthermore, they stated that at the time of his retirement, the Petitioner was serving as In-charge Executive Engineer. According to the advertisement’s exclusion clause, candidates retiring from positions higher than Assistant Engineer were ineligible to apply.

The Petitioner countered that the Respondents had misinterpreted the eligibility criteria. He asserted that his service as Assistant Engineer, including periods under additional charge, fulfilled the required 15 years. He also argued that his role as In-Charge Executive Engineer, a higher designation, should not disqualify him, as it was not a substantive promotion. The Petitioner sought relief from the High Court to permit his participation in the interview or arrange a fresh interview if his claim was found valid.

The matter called for interpretation of the advertisement’s eligibility and exclusion clauses to determine whether the Petitioner’s exclusion was justified.

ISSUES BEFORE THE HIGH COURT

1. Does ambiguous or vague language in employment advertisements and eligibility criteria favour the candidate or the employer when disputes arise?
2. Can higher duties or temporary charges disqualify an employee from applying for a position if the substantive eligibility requirements are otherwise met?

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

The Petitioner argued that he met all the eligibility criteria outlined in the advertisement dated 23.08.2024 for the post of General Manager (Contractual). He emphasized that the clause required a retired Assistant Engineer with 15 years of service, including 10 years of field experience. According to the Petitioner, his service record as an Assistant Engineer, which began substantively on 29.08.2013 and included earlier periods when he held additional charge, fulfilled this requirement. He contended that the Respondents misinterpreted the clause by discounting the periods when he performed duties as Assistant Engineer under additional charge.

The Petitioner argued that there was no specific condition in the advertisement that required the experience to be gained only in a substantive capacity. Moreover, he maintained that excluding his experience on this basis was unfair and contrary to the objective of the eligibility criteria.

Addressing the exclusion clause, the Petitioner asserted that it applied only to candidates who had substantively retired from positions higher than Assistant Engineer. He clarified that although he retired as In-Charge Executive Engineer, this was a temporary designation, and he was never substantively promoted to the post. Therefore, the exclusion clause did not disqualify him.

The Petitioner further claimed that the advertisement was vague and poorly worded, creating confusion regarding the eligibility requirements. In such cases, he argued, the benefit of doubt should favour the candidate rather than the employer. Denying him an opportunity to participate in the interview, despite his qualifications and service record, was arbitrary and unjust. He requested the High Court to direct the Respondents to either allow him to participate in the interview or conduct a fresh interview for him.

The Respondents argued that the Petitioner did not meet the eligibility criteria specified in the advertisement. They highlighted that the Petitioner’s total service as Assistant Engineer, including periods of additional charge, amounted to only 11 years, 9 months, and 27 days. This fell short of the required 15 years.

The Respondents further contended that the experience requirement under the advertisement referred to substantive service as an Assistant Engineer. Periods during which the Petitioner held additional charge could not be counted toward fulfilling the eligibility criteria. Thus, he was not qualified to apply for the advertised post.

The Respondents also emphasized the exclusion clause, which disqualifies candidates who retired from positions higher than Assistant Engineer. They argued that at the time of his retirement, the Petitioner was serving as In-Charge Executive Engineer, which was a higher designation. As such, he was not eligible to apply for the position under the terms of the advertisement.

The Respondents maintained that their interpretation of the advertisement was correct and consistent with its intent. They asserted that the Petitioner’s disqualification was justified and that the denial of his participation in the interview was lawful. They requested the High Court to dismiss the petition, upholding their interpretation of the eligibility and exclusion criteria.

DECISION AND FINDINGS

The High Court ruled in favour of the Petitioner finding that his exclusion from the interview for the post of General Manager (Contractual) was unjustified. The High Court directed the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to participate in a fresh interview and complete the selection process accordingly. The High Court concluded that the Petitioner met the eligibility criteria outlined in the advertisement.

It was clarified that the requirement of 15 years of service as an Assistant Engineer, including 10 years of field experience, did not explicitly demand that all such service be in a substantive capacity. The Petitioner’s periods of service as Assistant Engineer, even when performed under additional charge, were deemed sufficient to satisfy the experience requirement. The High Court rejected the Respondents’ argument that only substantive service should be considered.

The High Court found that the exclusion clause disqualifying candidates who retired from positions higher than Assistant Engineer did not apply to the Petitioner. It observed that the Petitioner was designated as In-Charge Executive Engineer at the time of retirement, but this was not a substantive promotion. The clause, as interpreted by the High Court, intended to exclude candidates who retired substantively from higher posts. Therefore, the Petitioner’s role as In-Charge Executive Engineer should not disqualify him.

The High Court also noted that the language of the advertisement was ambiguous and open to multiple interpretations. Such vagueness, the High Court held, should benefit the candidate rather than the employer. It emphasized that employment advertisements must be clear and precise to avoid confusion and disputes over eligibility. The High Court directed the Respondents to conduct a fresh interview for the Petitioner to ensure fairness in the selection process.

AMLEGALS REMARKS

The judgment by the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court highlights the importance of clarity and fairness in the interpretation of employment advertisements and eligibility criteria. By emphasizing that ambiguities in such documents should favor the candidate, the High Court has reinforced the principle that procedural clarity is critical to ensuring a fair selection process.

The High Court’s distinction between substantive and non-substantive designations, particularly in the context of temporary or additional charges, is significant. It ensures that candidates are not unjustly disqualified due to rigid interpretations that deviate from the intent of the criteria. This approach promotes equitable consideration of service records while safeguarding the objectives of recruitment processes.

The case also underscores the responsibility of employers to draft precise and unambiguous advertisements to minimize confusion and potential disputes. For legal professionals and employers, this judgment serves as a reminder to uphold principles of fairness, transparency, and equity in employment-related matters.

Team AMLEGALS