Ambiguity In Qualification Prescribed In Advertisement Should Be Construed To Benefit Of Candidate: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court was considering an appeal filed by an applicant for the post of Librarian under the Law Department challenging the judgment of the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court.
Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, Supreme Court
While setting aside an order of the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court for expanding the scope of the dispute in holding a candidate ineligible for appointment to the post of Librarian, the Supreme Court has held that 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.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed by an applicant for the post of Librarian under the Law Department challenging the judgment of the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court by which the Division Bench interfered with the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal and held that the requirement of 3 years’ experience is directly related to the educational qualification of M.Lib for the post of Librarian and such experience can be acquired by a candidate only after having the qualification of M.Lib.
The Division Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar held, “As the post of Library Assistant which was also advertised through the Advertisement Notice No. 01 of 2014 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. While so, 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. The Division Bench clearly 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.”
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan represented the Appellant while Advocate Parth Awasthi represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
An advertisement was issued in 2014 by the Services Selection Board inviting applications for appointment on 838 State, Divisional and District cadre posts. The records revealed that about 282 State cadre posts were advertised and one of such posts was the post of Librarian for which the prescribed qualification was Graduation with M.Lib having 3 years' experience. It was stated that Murad Hussain Shah was selected for the post of Librarian in the open merit category, but he did not participate in the document verification. The General Administration Department of the Government of Jammu & Kashmir made a request to the Services Selection Board to make a recommendation in favour of the appellant, who was the first wait-listed candidate for his appointment to the post of Librarian.
The Tribunal issued a direction to the respondents to offer the post of Librarian to him and to give him all consequential service benefits like seniority and pay fixation from the date when the last candidate was appointed. The respondents challenged the said decision of the Tribunal primarily on the ground that the experience acquired by the appellant as Assistant Librarian was not valid because he was pursuing an M.LIS course during that period. The Division Bench held that the requisite experience could be gained by a candidate only after obtaining the requisite educational qualification.
Reasoning
The Apex Court took note of the fact that the Division Bench undertook an exercise which normally should be conducted by the employer. “At no point in time an issue was raised by the respondents that the experience obtained by the appellant as the Assistant Librarian was not the requisite experience as envisaged under the Advertisement. Secondly, 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”, it added.
According to the Bench, as the post of Library Assistant required a qualification of Graduation with B.Lib, a candidate could have gained experience while working on such a post and qualified for the post of Librarian. As per the Apex Court, the Division Bench fell in error in expanding the scope of the dispute. The Bench thus set aside the impugned order.
The Bench allowed the appeal by directing, “However, we are inclined to interfere with the direction issued by the Tribunal to the effect that the appellant shall be given all consequential service benefits like seniority and pay fixation from the date when the last candidate was appointed pursuant to Advertisement Notice No. 01 of 2014.”
Cause Title: Irfan Ahmad Hakak v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1104)
Appearance
Appellant: Sr. Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Advocate Vishal Sinha, AOR Tanya Srivastava, Advocates Anmol Kheta, Tushar Srivastava, Shourya Dasgupta
Respondent: Advocate Parth Awasthi, AOR Pashupathi Nath Razdan