The Madhya Pradesh High Court stated that when job qualifications in an advertisement are unclear, the advantage should go to the candidate, not the employer.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court noted that the Authority should clearly define the terms in their advertisements. If the qualifications listed are unclear and open to different interpretations, the candidate should receive the benefit of the doubt, not the employer. The Petitioner went to the High Court after being denied the chance to interview for the General Manager (Contractual) position in the Project Implementation Unit of the Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority, following an advertisement from August 23, 2024.
Justice Sanjay Dwivedi, on the Single-Judge Bench, stated, “The advertisement (Annexure P/1) lacks clarity and precision, and its vague language leaves candidates uncertain about its true meaning, which is unacceptable in law.” Advocate Mahendra Pateriya represented the petitioner, while Government Advocate Girish Kekre represented the State. The respondents argued that the petitioner did not meet the required service period as an Assistant Engineer to qualify for the interview for the General Manager (Contractual) position. They claimed that while the petitioner had 11 years, 9 months, and 27 days of experience, this included time spent in an additional role rather than in a substantive position as an Assistant Engineer.
Pateriya argued for the petitioners that the advertisement clearly states a retired Assistant Engineer must have 15 years of experience in that role, including 10 years in the field. The petitioner meets this requirement but was not invited for an interview. The Bench reviewed the advertisement clause and found that the petitioner qualifies as a retired civil degree holder with 15 years of experience as an Assistant Engineer. They noted that the requirement was for a retired Assistant Engineer with a Civil Degree, and while the clause mentioned 15 years of experience, it did not specify that the candidate had to have held the position of Assistant Engineer continuously.
The Bench explained that the main purpose of the clause was to require 15 years of experience as an Assistant Engineer. The fact that the petitioner had some time as an In-charge Executive Engineer should not disqualify him. Since the petitioner was never promoted to Executive Engineer, the Bench concluded that the exclusion clause did not apply, as he retired as an Assistant Engineer, even though he was serving as In-charge Executive Engineer at retirement.
Any advertisement that creates confusion about qualifications and restricts a candidate’s freedom is, in my view, not appropriate. The authority should clarify the requirements. If the qualifications in the advertisement are unclear and open to different interpretations, the candidate should benefit from this ambiguity, not the employer. This is especially true given that the main goal of the respondents is to fill the position with a retired Assistant Engineer who has a Civil Degree and 15 years of experience. Therefore, denying a candidate based on unclear qualification criteria is not acceptable, the Bench stated.
As a result, the Bench granted the Petition and instructed the respondents to accept the petitioner’s application and organize a new interview for him, after which a final decision will be made regarding his selection for the advertised position as outlined in Annexure P/1.
Cause Title: Birendra Singh Yadav v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others [Case No. Writ Petition No. 31629 OF 2024]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Mahendra Pateriya
Respondents: Government Advocate Girish Kekre, Advocate Rohit Jain
