Ambiguity in advertised eligibility criteria must be construed in favour of the candidate.

Advertisement Notice No. 01 of 2014 prescribed “Graduation with M.Lib having 3 years’ experience” for the post of Librarian, without specifying the nature of the experience or whether it had to be acquired after obtaining the M.Lib qualification.

The appellant held an M.LIS degree and had worked as an Assistant Librarian while pursuing that course, followed by work as a Junior Professional Assistant; the respondents accepted that these roles constituted the advertised experience, but disputed the experience gained during his studies.

After the selected candidate declined the post, the appellant, the first wait-listed candidate, was recommended for appointment.

The Tribunal directed the respondents to offer him the post and grant consequential service benefits.

The High Court set aside that decision, holding that the three years’ experience could be acquired only after obtaining the M.LIS qualification, and dismissed the appellant’s review petition.

1. Whether ambiguity or vagueness in the advertised eligibility criterion could be resolved by the Court by requiring the three years’ experience to be acquired only after obtaining the M.LIS qualification

2. Whether the appellant was entitled to appointment as Librarian and to the consequential service benefits directed by the Tribunal

Where an employer’s advertised eligibility criterion is ambiguous or vague, the Court should not expand or recast that criterion by imposing an unstated qualification; clarification of the criterion is ordinarily for the employer, and the ambiguity should be construed in favour of a candidate who prima facie possesses the requisite qualifications.

The High Court had relied on Anil Kumar Gupta v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (2000) 1 SCC 128; Sheshrao Jangluji Bagde v. Bhaiyya, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 367; Shailendra Dania v. S.P. Dubey, (2007) 5 SCC 535; and K.K. Dixit v. Rajasthan Housing Board, (2015) 1 SCC 474, in support of requiring experience after the educational qualification.

The Supreme Court’s decision turned on the ambiguity in this advertisement and the absence of any such express requirement.

The advertisement did not specify that the three years’ experience had to be as a Librarian or Library Assistant, or that it had to follow completion of the M.LIS degree.

The respondents had not disputed that the appellant’s work as Assistant Librarian and Junior Professional Assistant was of the requisite kind; their objection concerned only the timing of the Assistant Librarian experience.

The Court held that the Division Bench erred by deciding a broader eligibility question and reading an unstated post-qualification experience requirement into a vague criterion.

Because the employer had not clarified the requirement, the ambiguity was to be resolved in the appellant’s favour.

It modified the Tribunal’s order by declining to grant consequential service benefits, including seniority and pay fixation, from the date the last candidate was appointed.

The appeals were allowed to that extent, with no order as to costs.