Supreme Court clarifies “experience as” Company Secretary for job eligibility: Ritu Bhatia vs. Ministry of Civil Supplies (2019)

LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of “experience as” in job eligibility criteria.

CASE TYPE: Service Law

Case Name: Ritu Bhatia vs. Ministry of Civil Supplies Consumer Affairs & Public Distribution and Others

Judgment Date: 05 February 2019

Date of the Judgment: 05 February 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 77
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., M.R. Shah, J.

Can experience gained while working as a “Management Trainee” or “Assistant Company Secretary” be considered equivalent to experience “as” a Company Secretary for job eligibility? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case, clarifying the importance of literal interpretation of eligibility criteria in job advertisements. The Court examined whether the appellant, who had worked in various capacities, met the requirement of five years’ experience “as” a Company Secretary. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice M.R. Shah, with the opinion authored by Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

The Central Railside Warehouse Company Limited (respondent no. 2) advertised a position for Company Secretary, specifying a mandatory requirement of five years’ post-qualification experience “as” a Company Secretary in a PSU or a private company of repute, as of 30th November 2013. The appellant, Ritu Bhatia, applied for the position, stating she had seven years and three months of post-qualification experience. She was interviewed, offered the position on 13th March 2014, and formally appointed on 22nd April 2014. However, a show-cause notice was issued on 1st November 2014, questioning her eligibility due to insufficient experience as a Company Secretary. Her services were terminated on 2nd January 2015 after considering her reply.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The appellant challenged her termination before the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 977 of 2015. A single judge dismissed the petition on 2nd February 2015. The Division Bench of the High Court also dismissed her appeal (LPA No. 160 of 2015) on 31st July 2017, upholding the single judge’s order. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core legal issue revolved around the interpretation of the phrase “experience as a Company Secretary” as used in the job advertisement. The advertisement required five years of post-qualification experience as a Company Secretary in a PSU/Private Company of repute. The court had to determine whether the appellant’s experience in roles such as Management Trainee and Assistant Company Secretary could be considered equivalent to the required experience.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that while she may have held positions such as Management Trainee and Assistant Company Secretary, she performed duties similar to those of a Company Secretary. Therefore, her experience should be considered as fulfilling the requirement.
• It was contended that the intention behind asking for experience as a Company Secretary was to ensure the applicant had experience of working in a similar capacity, not necessarily holding the formal designation of a Company Secretary.
• The appellant relied on the prescribed format of the application, arguing that the requirement was for qualification/experience as a Company Secretary, not necessarily actual working as a Company Secretary.
• The appellant argued that the High Court erred in calculating her experience with Bharat Bhushan Shares and Commodity Brokers Limited, considering it only up to May 2007, while Form-32 showed the cessation date as 29th June 2007.
• The appellant cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Dr. Asim Kumar Bose v. Union of India and Others (1983) 1 SCC 345, arguing that the word “as” should be interpreted in its ordinary sense as “in the capacity of,” or as “similar to,” “of the same kind,” or “in the same manner.” Therefore, her experience as a Management Trainee, where she performed similar duties, should be counted.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the advertisement specifically required five years of experience “as” a Company Secretary, meaning the candidate should have held the position of a Company Secretary in a PSU/Company of repute and performed the statutory functions of that role.
• The respondent contended that the appellant’s experience as a Management Trainee and Assistant Company Secretary could not be equated with the experience “as” a Company Secretary.
• The respondent argued that the High Court had correctly considered the appellant’s experience and rightly refused to interfere with the termination order.
• The respondent distinguished the case of Dr. Asim Kumar Bose, arguing that it was not applicable to the present case. In that case, the court interpreted the word “as” in the context of teaching experience, whereas, in the present case, the requirement was for a specific position.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be said that the appellant fulfilled the eligibility criteria mentioned in the advertisement of having experience of five years “as” a Company Secretary?
2. Whether the period during which the appellant worked as a ‘Management Trainee’ and/or ‘Assistant Company Secretary’ can be considered for treating the appellant as having been appointed “as” a Company Secretary, so as to become eligible for the post of Company Secretary which was advertised?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The following authorities were considered by the court:

• Dr. Asim Kumar Bose v. Union of India and Others (1983) 1 SCC 345 – Supreme Court of India

Authority Table

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court distinguished Dr. Asim Kumar Bose v. Union of India and Others (1983) 1 SCC 345, stating that the facts of that case were different. In that case, the court had interpreted the word “as” in the context of teaching experience, whereas, in the present case, the requirement was for a specific position. The court held that the word ‘as’ and the words ‘experience as Company Secretary’ used in the advertisement are very clear and it means that the candidate ought to be appointed and worked as such ‘as’ a Company Secretary.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized the literal interpretation of the word “as” in the advertisement. The Court reasoned that the employer, being the author of the advertisement, had the right to specify the eligibility criteria, and the word “as” should be given its plain and simple meaning. The Court also noted that if the intention was to consider experience of a similar nature, the advertisement would have used different wording. The court also emphasized that the purpose of the advertisement was to ensure 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. The court also held that the decision in Dr. Asim Kumar Bose was not applicable to the facts of the present case.

Fact:Law

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered the alternative interpretation that the experience in a similar capacity should be considered but rejected it. The court reasoned that if the intention was to consider experience of a similar nature, the advertisement would have used different wording. The court also rejected the argument that the decision in Dr. Asim Kumar Bose was applicable to the facts of the present case. The court concluded that the appellant did not meet the eligibility criteria, and therefore, her termination was valid.

The court’s decision was unanimous. Justice M.R. Shah authored the judgment, with Justice L. Nageswara Rao concurring.

The court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “The word ‘as’ used in the advertisement should be given a 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 ‘as’.”
• “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 ‘as’ a Company Secretary for five years.”

Key Takeaways

• Job advertisements should be interpreted literally, especially regarding eligibility criteria.
• Experience in a similar capacity may not be sufficient if the advertisement specifically requires experience “as” a particular position.
• Employers have the right to specify the exact requirements for a position, and candidates must meet those requirements precisely.
• The word “as” in the context of job experience means that the candidate should have been appointed to and worked in that specific position.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the term “experience as” in a job advertisement must be interpreted literally, requiring candidates to have held the specific position and performed the duties associated with it, and not merely having experience in a similar capacity. This clarifies the legal position on the interpretation of eligibility criteria in job advertisements and reinforces the importance of adhering to the literal meaning of the terms used.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision. The Court held that the appellant did not meet the eligibility criteria of having five years of post-qualification experience “as” a Company Secretary. The Court emphasized that the word “as” should be interpreted literally, and experience as a Management Trainee or Assistant Company Secretary cannot be considered equivalent to experience “as” a Company Secretary.

Category

Parent Category: Service Law
Child Category: Job Eligibility Criteria
Child Category: Interpretation of “as”
Parent Category: Company Secretary
Child Category: Experience as Company Secretary

FAQ

Q: What does “experience as” mean in a job advertisement?
A: “Experience as” means that the candidate should have been formally appointed to and worked in the specific position mentioned in the advertisement, not just having experience in a similar capacity.

Q: Can experience as a Management Trainee be considered equivalent to experience as a Company Secretary?
A: No, according to this judgment, experience as a Management Trainee cannot be considered equivalent to experience “as” a Company Secretary.

Q: What if I have worked in a similar capacity but not with the exact designation?
A: If the job advertisement specifically requires experience “as” a particular position, experience in a similar capacity may not be sufficient. The literal meaning of “as” will be considered.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment for job seekers?
A: Job seekers should carefully read job advertisements and ensure they meet the exact eligibility criteria, including the specific designations and experience requirements. The court has emphasized the importance of literal interpretation of job advertisements.