Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sachin Deoram Sable, applied for the post of Divisional Controller pursuant to Advertisement No. 1/2018 issued by the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC). The advertisement required, inter alia, 10 years experience in a commercial organization with more than 1000 employees. The petitioner submitted an experience certificate from ECIL Rapiscan Ltd, a joint venture with offices in multiple cities and more than 1000 employees. MSRTC, however, held the petitioner ineligible on the ground that the Pune office of ECIL Rapiscan had less than 1000 employees, and subsequently cancelled the entire selection process. The petitioner challenged this decision by way of a writ petition. The court analyzed the advertisement and found that the condition did not specify that the experience must be acquired after obtaining the educational qualification, nor did it restrict the employee count to the local office. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Subhash Dhonde v. State of Maharashtra and the coordinate bench's decision in Sonali Avhad v. State of Maharashtra, which held that eligibility criteria cannot be altered after the selection process and that the advertisement's silence on the timing of experience cannot be used to reject a candidate. The court concluded that MSRTC's action was arbitrary and set aside the impugned decision dated 15.07.2019, directing MSRTC to consider the petitioner's representation and issue an appointment letter if he otherwise qualifies.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Eligibility Criteria - Advertisement Interpretation - Experience Requirement - The issue was whether the petitioner's experience in ECIL Rapiscan Ltd, a joint venture with offices across India and more than 1000 employees, satisfied the condition of '10 years experience in commercial organization with more than 1000 employees' under Advertisement No. 1/2018. The court held that the employer cannot restrict the assessment to the local office's employee strength; the overall strength of the organization must be considered. The impugned decision cancelling the entire selection process was set aside. (Paras 7-10) B) Service Law - Selection Process - Cancellation - Arbitrariness - The court examined whether MSRTC could cancel the entire selection process due to the petitioner's alleged ineligibility. Relying on Subhash Dhonde v. State of Maharashtra and Sonali Avhad v. State of Maharashtra, the court held that the cancellation was arbitrary and unjustified as the advertisement did not require experience post-qualification and the petitioner met the advertised criteria. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Respondent No.1 (MSRTC) was right in holding the Petitioner ineligible for the post of Divisional Controller on the ground that the Petitioner does not meet the requirement of 10 years experience in a commercial organization with more than 1000 employees?
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed and set aside the impugned decision dated 15.07.2019, and directed Respondent No.1 to consider the petitioner's representation and issue an appointment letter for the post of Divisional Controller if he otherwise qualifies.
Law Points
- Eligibility criteria must be strictly as per advertisement
- employer cannot add new conditions after selection process
- experience in commercial organization with more than 1000 employees to be assessed on overall strength of organization
- not local office
- cancellation of entire selection process on ground of ineligibility of one candidate is arbitrary
