Date of the Judgment: 31 January 2018
Citation: Ashish Kumar vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2018) INSC 71
Judges: A.K. Sikri, J., Ashok Bhushan, J.
Can a candidate be denied a job after being selected, if the employer misinterprets the advertised qualifications? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the post of Psychologist in Uttar Pradesh. The court clarified that a candidate holding a graduation in Psychology or a L.T./B.T./B.Ed. in Psychology is eligible for the post, and the employer cannot insist on both qualifications. This judgment emphasizes the importance of accurately interpreting advertisement and statutory rules in recruitment processes. The majority opinion was authored by Ashok Bhushan, J.
Case Background
The appellant, Ashish Kumar, possessing a graduation and post-graduation in Psychology, along with a master’s degree in Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations, applied for the post of Psychologist in response to an advertisement dated 30.08.2001 by the Director, Social Welfare Department, U.P. He was issued an admit card, appeared for the written exam, and was declared successful. However, on 12.05.2003, during document verification, he was informed that he was ineligible because he did not possess a L.T./B.T./B.Ed. degree. The appellant’s representation was rejected on 19.04.2004, leading him to file a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 30.08.2001 | Advertisement for the post of Psychologist issued by the Director, Social Welfare Department, U.P. |
| N/A | Appellant, Ashish Kumar, applies for the post of Psychologist. |
| N/A | Appellant issued admit card for written examination. |
| N/A | Appellant appears in the written examination and is declared successful. |
| 02.05.2003 | Letter issued to the appellant for document verification. |
| 12.05.2003 | Appellant informed of ineligibility due to lack of L.T./B.T./B.Ed. qualification. |
| 02.06.2003 | Appellant submits a representation to the respondent. |
| 19.04.2004 | Representation of the appellant rejected by the respondent. |
| 18.05.2006 | Single Judge of the High Court dismisses the writ petition. |
| 04.10.2010 | High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismisses the Special Appeal of the appellant. |
| 20.12.2012 | High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismisses the review application filed by the appellant. |
| 31.01.2018 | Supreme Court of India allows the appeal and directs the respondents to appoint the appellant. |
Course of Proceedings
The learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition, accepting the respondent’s argument that the appellant was not qualified because he lacked the L.T./B.T./B.Ed. training qualification. The appellant’s special appeal was also dismissed by the Division Bench, which held that the advertisement required both a graduation in Psychology and a L.T./B.T./B.Ed. degree. The review application was also rejected.
Legal Framework
The primary legal framework in this case is the Janjatiya Vikas Shikshan Aur Kermchariverg Sewa Niyamawali, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as “1991 Rules”), which governs the recruitment process for the post of Psychologist. The advertisement issued by the Social Welfare Department also plays a crucial role in determining the eligibility criteria.
The 1991 Rules specify the qualifications for the post of Psychologist. According to the schedule of the 1991 Rules, the essential qualification is a “M.A. in Psychology”, with a preference for “B.Ed. or diploma from any recognized institution in teaching subject”.
Arguments
Appellant’s Submissions:
- The appellant argued that being a graduate and post-graduate in Psychology, he was fully eligible for the post of Psychologist.
- He contended that the advertisement was misinterpreted by the High Court and that a graduation in Psychology was sufficient.
- He argued that the advertisement did not require a graduate in Psychology with L.T./B.T./B.Ed.
- He submitted that the post of Psychologist is not a teaching post and therefore, a training qualification was not necessary.
- He relied on the 1991 Rules, which specify that the minimum qualification for a Psychologist is a M.A. in Psychology, and that B.Ed. is only a preferable qualification.
- He argued that the advertisement mentioned “Graduate in Psychology or L.T./B.T. B.Ed.”, indicating that these were alternative qualifications.
Respondent’s Submissions:
- The respondents argued that the appellant was not qualified as the advertisement required a graduate in Psychology with L.T./B.T./B.Ed.
- They contended that the 1991 Rules governed the field and that the appellant did not meet the eligibility criteria.
- They admitted that the appellant was called for the written exam and interview but argued that they corrected their mistake upon realizing that he did not possess the L.T./B.T./B.Ed. qualification.
Submissions Table
| Party | Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Appellant | Eligibility for the post of Psychologist |
|
| Respondent | Appellant not qualified |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the appellant, possessing a graduation and post-graduation in Psychology, was eligible for the post of Psychologist as per the advertisement and the 1991 Rules.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellant was eligible for the post of Psychologist | Yes, the appellant was eligible. | The court held that the advertisement and the 1991 Rules should be interpreted to mean that a graduation in Psychology or a L.T./B.T./B.Ed. in Psychology are alternative qualifications. The court also held that the 1991 Rules specify that the essential qualification is M.A. in Psychology. |
Authorities
The Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was considered |
|---|---|---|
| Janjatiya Vikas Shikshan Aur Kermchariverg Sewa Niyamawali, 1991 | N/A | The court relied on the 1991 Rules to determine the essential qualifications for the post of Psychologist. |
| Malik Mazhar Sultan & Anr. Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission & Ors., 2006 (9) SCC 507 | Supreme Court of India | The Court cited this case to emphasize that statutory rules take precedence over any contrary provisions in an advertisement. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court analyzed the submissions of both parties and the relevant authorities. The Court held that the advertisement was misinterpreted by the High Court and the respondent.
| Submission | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that graduation in Psychology is sufficient | Accepted. The Court agreed that the advertisement should be interpreted as providing alternative qualifications and that the 1991 Rules specify M.A. in Psychology as essential qualification. |
| Respondent’s submission that L.T./B.T./B.Ed. is mandatory | Rejected. The Court held that the advertisement should be read to mean that a graduate in Psychology or a L.T./B.T./B.Ed. in Psychology are alternative qualifications. |
The Court also considered the authorities in the following manner:
✓ Janjatiya Vikas Shikshan Aur Kermchariverg Sewa Niyamawali, 1991: The Court relied on the 1991 Rules to determine the essential qualifications for the post of Psychologist, noting that the rules specify M.A. in Psychology as the essential qualification and B.Ed. as a preferential qualification.
✓ Malik Mazhar Sultan & Anr. Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission & Ors., 2006 (9) SCC 507: The Court relied on this authority to emphasize that statutory rules take precedence over any contrary provisions in an advertisement. *“The recruitment to the service can only be made in accordance with the Rules and the error, if any, in the advertisement cannot override the Rules and create a right in favour of a candidate if otherwise not eligible according to the Rules.”*
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to correctly interpret the advertisement and the 1991 Rules. The Court emphasized that the use of stroke (/) between “Graduate” and “L.T./B.T. B.Ed.” indicated that these were alternative qualifications and not cumulative requirements. The Court also noted that the 1991 Rules specify M.A. in Psychology as the essential qualification for the post of Psychologist. The court also considered that the appellant was selected for the post and was denied appointment based on an incorrect interpretation of the rules.
The Court’s reasoning was driven by the following points:
- The correct interpretation of the advertisement and the 1991 Rules.
- The use of stroke (/) in the advertisement to indicate alternative qualifications.
- The essential qualification for the post of Psychologist as per the 1991 Rules.
- The fact that the appellant was selected for the post and was denied appointment based on an incorrect interpretation of the rules.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Correct Interpretation of Rules and Advertisement | 40% |
| Use of Stroke (/) in Advertisement | 30% |
| Essential Qualification as per 1991 Rules | 20% |
| Appellant’s Selection and Denial of Appointment | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
Logical Reasoning
The Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s interpretation that the advertisement required both a graduation in Psychology and a L.T./B.T./B.Ed. degree. The Court reasoned that the use of the stroke (/) between “Graduate” and “L.T./B.T. B.Ed.” indicated that these were alternative qualifications. The Court also noted that the 1991 Rules specify M.A. in Psychology as the essential qualification, with B.Ed. being a preferential qualification. The Court emphasized that any part of the advertisement contrary to the statutory rules must give way to the statutory prescription.
The court stated, *“The words graduate/L.T./B.T. B.Ed. are all alternative qualification which are prefixed with word “In subject of Psychology”. A harmonious reading may mean that a person graduate in subject of Psychology or L.T./B.T. B.Ed. with Psychology is eligible.”*
The Court also stated, *“The appointing authority is well aware of the meaning of stroke ‘(/)’, word “or”, “either” and “with” which has been frequently used in the qualifications which is apparent from the advertisement.”*
The Court further stated, *“Any part of the advertisement which is contrary to the statutory rules has to give way to the statutory prescription.”*
Key Takeaways
- Advertisements for government jobs must be carefully worded to avoid misinterpretations.
- Statutory rules governing recruitment take precedence over any contrary provisions in the advertisement.
- Use of symbols like stroke (/) in qualifications indicates alternative qualifications, not cumulative requirements.
- Candidates cannot be denied appointment if they meet the eligibility criteria as per the statutory rules, even if there is an error in the advertisement.
- This judgment clarifies the eligibility criteria for the post of Psychologist and emphasizes the importance of adhering to statutory rules in recruitment processes.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the respondents to issue an appointment order to the appellant for the post of Psychologist within two months from the date a copy of the order is produced before them.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that when an advertisement for a government job uses a stroke (/) between qualifications, it indicates alternative qualifications, not cumulative requirements. Further, statutory rules take precedence over any contrary provisions in an advertisement. This judgment reinforces the principle that recruitment must be conducted in accordance with statutory rules and that candidates cannot be denied appointment based on misinterpretations of advertisements.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Ashish Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh clarifies that a candidate with a graduation in Psychology or a L.T./B.T./B.Ed. in Psychology is eligible for the post of Psychologist, emphasizing that the use of a stroke (/) in the advertisement indicates alternative qualifications. This decision underscores the importance of accurate interpretation of advertisements and adherence to statutory rules in recruitment processes. The Court directed the respondents to appoint the appellant to the post of Psychologist.
Category
Parent Category: Service Law
Child Categories: Recruitment Rules, Eligibility Criteria, Government Jobs, Janjatiya Vikas Shikshan Aur Kermchariverg Sewa Niyamawali, 1991
Parent Category: Janjatiya Vikas Shikshan Aur Kermchariverg Sewa Niyamawali, 1991
Child Category: Recruitment Rules, 1991
FAQ
Q: What was the main issue in the Ashish Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh case?
A: The main issue was whether a candidate with a graduation in Psychology was eligible for the post of Psychologist, or if a L.T./B.T./B.Ed. degree was also mandatory.
Q: What did the Supreme Court rule about the use of the stroke (/) in the advertisement?
A: The Supreme Court ruled that the use of the stroke (/) between qualifications in the advertisement indicated alternative qualifications, not cumulative requirements.
Q: What is the significance of the Janjatiya Vikas Shikshan Aur Kermchariverg Sewa Niyamawali, 1991 in this case?
A: The 1991 Rules are the statutory rules governing the recruitment process for the post of Psychologist. The Supreme Court held that these rules take precedence over any contrary provisions in the advertisement.
Q: What did the Supreme Court direct the respondents to do?
A: The Supreme Court directed the respondents to issue an appointment order to the appellant for the post of Psychologist within two months.
Q: What is the key takeaway from this judgment for job seekers?
A: Job seekers should be aware that statutory rules take precedence over advertisements, and that the use of stroke (/) between qualifications usually indicates that they are alternative, not cumulative requirements.