Experience requirements for recruitment include non-regular service unless the advertisement specifically mandates regular appointment.

The respondents participated in a selection process for the post of TV Producer Grade-II following an advertisement dated 22 April 2023 issued by the petitioners (NCERT).

The advertisement required a degree/diploma in Mass Communication and "three years' experience in the production of films or TV programs".

The respondents cleared the written examination and document verification but were excluded from the final result issued on 22 April 2024.

NCERT contended that the respondents were ineligible as they lacked three years of "regular" service experience.

The respondents challenged this exclusion before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in OA 1980/2024, which ruled in their favor.

NCERT filed the present writ petition challenging the CAT's order.

Whether the requirement of "three years' experience" specified in a recruitment advertisement can be interpreted to mean "three years' regular service" when the word "regular" was not stipulated in the advertisement.

The court applied the principle of literal interpretation of recruitment eligibility criteria.

Eligibility must be assessed strictly against the terms of the advertisement issued to the public.

Legal standards dictate that an employer cannot retrospectively read restrictive conditions (such as "regular appointment") into the prescribed experience criteria if such conditions were absent from the original recruitment notification.

The court found that the advertisement explicitly prescribed "three years' experience" without any qualification regarding the nature of the appointment (regular or otherwise) under which such experience was gained.

It was undisputed that the respondents possessed the requisite three years of experience in film and TV production.

The court rejected the petitioners' sole contention that "experience" should be equated with "regular service," noting that the Tribunal correctly identified the absence of the word "regular" in the advertisement.

Consequently, the court held that the petitioners could not disqualify the respondents by imposing a new condition after the selection process had commenced.

The court dismissed the writ petition in limine and directed the petitioners to ensure compliance with the Tribunal's directions within four weeks.