Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1467 OF 2019
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.116 OF 2018)
| RITU BHATIA<br>Versus | .. APPELLANT(S) |
|---|---|
| MINISTRY OF CIVIL SUPPLIES<br>CONSUMER AFFAIRS & PUBLIC<br>DISTRIBUTION AND OTHERS | ..RESPONDENT(S) |
J U D G M E N T
M.R.SHAH, J.
Leave granted.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of
Delhi dated 31.07.2017 passed in Letter Patent Appeal (LPA)
Signature Not Verified
No.160 of 2015 by which the Division Bench has dismissed the
Digitally signed by
SUSHIL KUMAR
RAKHEJA
Date: 2019.02.05
17:42:10 IST
Reason:
said appeal and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by
1
the learned Single Judge dated 02.02.2015 passed in Writ
Petition (C) No.977 of 2015 dismissing the said writ petition by
not interfering with the order terminating the services of the
appellant, the original writ petitioner has preferred the present
appeal.
3. That respondent no.2 hereinCentral Railside Warehouse
Company Limited invited applications for the post of Company
Secretary. That respondent no.2’s advertisement, specifically
provided for, five years post qualification mandatory experience
as a Company Secretary as on 30.11.2013 in a PSU/Private
Company of repute. The appellant herein applied for the post of
Company Secretary. In her application she categorically stated
that she had post qualification experience of seven years and
three months. That thereafter she appeared in an interview held
by respondent no.2 and was offered appointment to the post of
Company Secretary vide memorandum dated 13.03.2014.
Thereafter, she was appointed on regular basis to the post of
Company Secretary by Office Order dated 22.04.2014. A show
cause notice dated 01.11.2014 was issued by respondent no.2
calling upon the appellant to explain why her services should not
2
be terminated as she did not have the requisite five years’
experience for the post of Company Secretary. The appellant
submitted her reply to the above show cause notice. Respondent
no.2 thereafter vide its order dated 02.01.2015 terminated the
services of the appellant.
4. The order of termination was challenged by the appellant
before the High Court in Writ Petition (C) No.977 of 2015. By
order dated 02.02.2015, the learned Single Judge dismissed the
said petition. The order passed by the learned Single Judge
dismissing the writ petition was the subject matter of the appeal
before the Division Bench of the High Court by way of LPA
No.160 of 2015. By the impugned judgment and order, the
Division Bench has dismissed the said appeal and has confirmed
the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge
dismissing the writ petition. The order passed by the Division
Bench in LPA No.160 of 2015 is the subject matter of the present
appeal.
5. Shri Sunil Kumar, learned Senior Counsel has appeared on
behalf of the appellant herein and Shri Gourab Banerji, learned
3
Senior Counsel has appeared on behalf of respondent no.2
herein.
5.1 Shri Sunil Kumar, learned senior counsel has submitted
that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High court
committed a grave error in approving the order of termination on
the ground that the appellant was not having the requisite
qualification of having experience of five years as a Company
Secretary. It is submitted by Shri Sunil Kumar that the High
Court has failed to appreciate the fact that though during seven
years and three months experience shown in her application, the
appellant might have been appointed as Management Trainee
and Assistant Company Secretary and consequently might not
have been actually appointed as the Company Secretary,
however, the appellant was discharging certain or some
functions/duties during the period of a Company Secretary. It is
submitted that therefore it can be said that the appellant was
having requisite experience of five years as a Company Secretary.
Therefore, the period during which the appellant was working as
a Management Trainee is required to be counted as the requisite
experience for the post of Company Secretary.
4
5.2 It is further submitted by Shri Sunil Kumar, learned senior
counsel that the object and purpose behind asking for the
experience as a Company Secretary was that the applicant has
an experience of working as Company Secretary and not that
he/she had actually worked and/or performed the duties as a
Company Secretary under the provisions of the Company
Secretary Act 1980. It is submitted therefore, the High Court
committed an error to hold that the appellant was not having the
requisite experience as a Company Secretary.
5.3 Relying upon prescribed format of submitting the
application attached with the application form, it is submitted
that what was required was the qualification/ experience as
Company Secretary and not actual working as Company
Secretary.
5.4 It is further submitted by Shri Sunil Kumar, learned senior
counsel that as far as the experience gained by the appellant
while working with Bharat Bhushan Shares and Commodity
Brokers Limited is concerned, the High Court has committed a
grave error in considering the experience only till May, 2007,
though the Form32 shows the date of cessation as 29.06.2007.
5
5.5 Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Dr.
Asim Kumar Bose v. Union of India and Others (1983) 1 SCC 345,
it is submitted by Shri Sunil Kumar that as observed and held by
this Court, the word ‘as’ must be interpreted in its ordinary sense
as ‘in the capacity of’ or be interpreted as the words like, ‘similar
to’, ‘of the same kind’, ‘in the same manner’ or ‘in the manner in
which’. It is submitted, therefore, the word ‘as’ used in the
advertisement should mean that the applicant shall have the
experience similar as to or like or of the same kind of Company
Secretary. It is submitted, therefore, the experience gained by the
appellant while working as Management Trainee and during
which the appellant was also performing the similar duties of a
Company Secretary, the said experience was required to be
counted for the purpose of calculation of experience of five years
as Company Secretary.
5.6 Making above submissions it is prayed to allow the present
appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court as well
as the order of termination terminating the services of the
appellant as a Company Secretary.
6
6. Present appeal is opposed by Shri Gourab Banerji learned
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. It is
submitted by Shri Banerji that in the advertisement, inviting the
applications for the post of Company Secretary, it was specifically
mentioned that the candidate must have an experience of five
years as a Company Secretary. It is submitted that the obvious
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 a Company
‘as’
Secretary, to be eligible for appointment.
6.1 It is further submitted that 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. It is
submitted that in the present case and even from the particulars
given by the appellant while submitting the application and even
from the selfattested documents/experience certificates enclosed
with the application, it can be seen that the appellant was not
fulfilling the requisite eligibility criteria of having an experience of
five years ‘as’ a Company Secretary. Shri Banerji further submits
7
that, as it is evident, during the period when the appellant
claimed the experience as required, the appellant worked as
‘Management Trainee’ and even as ‘Assistant Company
Secretary’. It is submitted that experience as ‘Management
Trainee’ and or ‘Assistant Company Secretary’, cannot be
counted for the purpose of considering the eligibility criteria of
five years ‘as’ a Company Secretary.
6.2 Further Shri Banerji submitted that, therefore, when it was
found that the total post qualification experience of the appellant
Company Secretary was less than five years against the
‘as’
requirement of minimum five years’ experience and thereafter
when the services of the appellant were terminated on the ground
that at the time when the application was invited, she was not
fulfilling the eligibility criteria, her services have been rightly
terminated. It is submitted that the High Court in the impugned
judgment and order has considered in detail the experience of the
appellant while working in Delhi Stock Exchange Association
Limited; Bharat Bhushan Shares and Commodity Brokers
Limited; Utkal Investment Limited and thereafter considering the
8
material on record, has rightly refused to interfere with the order
of termination and has rightly rejected the petition.
6.3 Shri Banerji. Learned counsel for the respondent has
further submitted that so far as the reliance placed upon the
decision of this Court in the case of Dr. Asim Kumar Bose (supra)
relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant is concerned, it is submitted by Shri Banerji that
on facts, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of
the case on hand. It is submitted that the said decision is
distinguishable on facts. It is submitted that, on interpretation of
the relevant rules, this Court held that the word ‘as’ in the
collocation of the words used “at least six years’ experience as
Associate Professor/Assistant Professor/reader” and the words
“at least five years’ experience as Reader/Assistant Professor”
must be interpreted in its ordinary sense as meaning teaching
experience gained “in the capacity of”. It is submitted that before
this Court the question was whether a Specialists’ Grade II in a
teaching hospital belonging to the Central Health Service was
eligible for appointment or promotion as a Professor or Associate
Professor of the concerned speciality? It is submitted therefore,
9
the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case
on hand. Making above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the
present appeal.
7. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties at length. The question which is posed for
consideration before this Court is, whether in the facts and
circumstances of the case can it be said that the appellant
fulfilled the eligibility criteria mentioned in the advertisement of
having experience of five years a Company Secretary and/or,
‘as’
can it be said that the period during which the appellant worked
as ‘Management Trainee’ and/or ‘Assistant Company Secretary’
be considered for treating the appellant having been appointed
a Company Secretary so as to become eligible for the post of
‘as’
Company Secretary which was advertised?
7.1 From the material on record, more particularly the
application submitted by the appellant and the supporting self
attested documents and the certificates, it appears that according
to the appellant she was having seven years and three months
post qualification experience. The same is reproduced and
10
considered by the High Court in para 3 of the impugned
judgment and order.
7.2 Considering the above, it appears and even it can be seen
from the relevant appointment orders, and even as per the case
of the appellant that she was working as Assistant Company
Secretary for the period between June 2008 to May 2010 in Utkal
Investments Limited and that 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.
7.3 The word used in the advertisement should be given a
‘as’
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 ‘ ’. It is the specific case on behalf of
as
the respondents that the intention behind the advertisement was
that the applicant must have been appointed ‘ ’ a Company
as
Secretary in PSU/Company of repute and functioned as such for
five years to be eligible for appointment. According to the
11
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 ‘ ’ a Company Secretary. If the period during
as
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 ‘ ’ a ‘Company Secretary.
as
7.4 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
12
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 ‘ ’ a
as
Company Secretary for five years. Giving other meaning would be
changing the eligibility criteria as mentioned in the
advertisement. As observed hereinabove, 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’.
7.5 Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this
Court in Dr. Asim Kumar Bose (supra) by learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant is concerned, on considering
the facts of the case before this Court, we are of the opinion that
the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case
13
on hand. The facts before this Court in the aforesaid decision are
distinguishable. In the aforesaid decision, the appellant was
appointed to the Specialists’ Grade in substantive capacity as
Radiologist in Irwin Hospital, Delhi which was a teaching
hospital. He was considered as an Associate Professor of
Radiology (ex officio) both by the Delhi University as well as by
the Maulana Azad Medical College, Delhi to which Irwin Hospital
was affiliated. He was not considered for the regular appointment
to the post of Associate Professor of Radiotherapy in that college
on the ground that his teaching experience as ex officio Associate
Professor was not to be counted. Rule 8(2A) of the Central
Health Service Rules was under consideration by this Court
which provided that a candidate shall have the teaching
experience as an Associate Professor. The appellant was having
the experience as an Associate Professor of Radiology (Exofficio)
and therefore it was the case on behalf of the Union of India that
he was not having the teaching experience as Associate Professor
as he worked as an Associate Professor of Radiology (exofficio).
To that, this Court observed and held that the provisions
contained in Rule 8(2A) and paragraph 3 of Annexure I to the
Second Schedule of the Central Health Service Rules must be
14
interpreted in a broad and liberal sense so as to avoid any
injustice to person in specialists’ Grade like the appellant. This
Court observed that the Rules nowhere provide that the teaching
experience gained by a Specialist in a teaching hospital as an
Associate Professor (ex officio) shall not be counted towards the
requisite teaching experience. This Court further observed that
there is hardly any difference so far as the teaching experience is
concerned whether it is acquired on regular appointment or as
specialist in a teaching hospital with the ex officio designation. It
was thereafter further observed that the word ‘as’ in the
collocation of the words used “at least six years’ experience as
Associate Professor/Assistant Professor/Reader” and of the
words “at least five years’ experience as Reader/Assistant
Professor” in the relevant Rules must be interpreted in its
ordinary sense as meaning teaching experience gained “in the
capacity of”.
7.6 In the present case, the word ‘ ’ and the words ‘experience
as
as Company Secretary’ used in the advertisement are very clear
and as observed hereinabove it means the candidate ought to be
appointed and worked as such ‘ ’ a Company Secretary.
as
15
Therefore, the aforesaid decision shall not be applicable to the
facts of the case on hand.
8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, 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. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by
the High Court.
9. In view of the reasons stated above, the present appeal fails
and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
………………..............................J.
(L. NAGESWARA RAO)
……………….............................J.
( M.R. SHAH )
New Delhi,
February 05, 2019.
16