LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an employer can reject a candidate for not submitting an experience certificate with the application when the advertisement does not explicitly require it, and when the candidate possesses the required experience.
CASE TYPE: Service Law
Case Name: Food Corporation of India vs. Rimjhim
Judgment Date: 09 April 2019
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 09 April 2019
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 3600 of 2019 (Arising from SLP(C) No.4210 of 2019)
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and M.R. Shah, J.
Can a candidate be denied a job for not submitting an experience certificate along with the application, even if they possess the required experience? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and a candidate who was denied a position for not submitting the experience certificate with her application. The core issue was whether the FCI was justified in rejecting the candidate’s application based on a procedural technicality, despite the candidate fulfilling the essential eligibility criteria. This judgment clarifies the importance of substance over form in employment matters. The bench comprised Justices L. Nageswara Rao and M.R. Shah, with the judgment authored by Justice M.R. Shah.
Case Background
The Food Corporation of India (FCI) published an advertisement on 14.02.2015, inviting applications for the post of Assistant Grade-II (Hindi). Rimjhim, the respondent, applied for the post on 16.03.2015. Her application was accepted, and she was issued an admit card for the written test, which she cleared, securing the sixth rank in the merit list. She was called for document verification on 31.12.2015, and her original documents were retained and then returned after verification. However, she did not receive the final appointment letter. The list of selected candidates was published on 02.05.2016, and her name was missing. She submitted a representation on 06.05.2016, which was not considered.
The FCI contended that Rimjhim was not selected because she did not produce a one-year experience certificate for translation from English to Hindi and vice-versa, as required by the advertisement. Rimjhim, however, produced certificates from her previous employer to demonstrate her experience.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 14.02.2015 | FCI published advertisement for Assistant Grade-II (Hindi) post. |
| 16.03.2015 | Rimjhim applied for the post. |
| 04.10.2015 | Written test was conducted. |
| 31.12.2015 | Rimjhim was called for document verification. |
| 18.01.2016 | Rimjhim’s documents were verified. |
| 02.05.2016 | List of selected candidates published; Rimjhim’s name was missing. |
| 06.05.2016 | Rimjhim submitted a representation. |
Course of Proceedings
The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed Rimjhim’s writ petition, agreeing with the FCI that she lacked the required one-year experience in translation. However, the Division Bench of the High Court overturned this decision, observing that the certificates produced by Rimjhim showed she had the necessary experience. The Division Bench noted that Rimjhim was ranked sixth in the merit list and was otherwise meritorious. The High Court held that the FCI was not justified in denying her appointment.
Legal Framework
The advertisement for the post of Assistant Grade-II (Hindi) required candidates to have one year of experience in translation from English to Hindi and vice-versa. The advertisement did not explicitly state that the experience certificate had to be submitted along with the application. Clause 33 of the advertisement stated that the management reserved the right to call for additional documentary evidence in support of educational qualifications and experience.
Arguments
Appellant (FCI)’s Arguments:
- ✓ The FCI argued that the Division Bench of the High Court erred in setting aside the rejection of the original writ petitioner’s application.
- ✓ They contended that the advertisement required one year’s experience in translation from English to Hindi and vice-versa, and that candidates were required to submit proof of this experience with their application.
- ✓ The FCI submitted that the certificate produced by the original writ petitioner, dated 27.08.2014, was a relieving-cum-experience letter and not a specific experience certificate for translation.
- ✓ The FCI argued that the High Court erred in considering the certificates dated 14.01.2015 and 18.07.2016, as these were produced later and not with the initial application.
- ✓ They argued that allowing candidates to produce experience certificates after the selection process would undermine the sanctity of the advertisement requirements.
Respondent (Rimjhim)’s Arguments:
- ✓ The respondent argued that the Division Bench of the High Court was correct in setting aside the FCI’s decision, as she had the requisite experience and was meritorious, ranking sixth in the merit list.
- ✓ She contended that the non-production of the experience certificate with the application was a mere irregularity and not fatal to her case.
- ✓ The respondent argued that the advertisement did not explicitly require the submission of the experience certificate with the application.
- ✓ She submitted that the FCI did not specifically dispute the certificates dated 14.01.2015 and 18.07.2016 in their counter-affidavit before the High Court.
- ✓ The respondent argued that the FCI could have asked for additional documents during the verification process, as per clause 33 of the advertisement, but they did not.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (FCI) | Sub-Submissions (Rimjhim) |
|---|---|---|
| Rejection of Application |
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issue:
- Whether the High Court was right in setting aside the action of the FCI in rejecting the case of the original writ petitioner for not producing the experience certificate along with the application?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was right in setting aside the action of the FCI in rejecting the case of the original writ petitioner for not producing the experience certificate along with the application? | Yes, the High Court was correct in setting aside the FCI’s decision. | The advertisement did not mandate that the experience certificate be submitted with the application. The candidate possessed the required experience, and the FCI could have sought additional documents if needed. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following cases:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Charles K. Skaria v. Dr. C. Mathew (1980) 2 SCC 752 | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished between essential requirements and proof/mode of proof, emphasizing that the possession of a qualification is essential, while the mode of proof is secondary. |
| Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE and others (2005) 9 SCC 779 | Supreme Court of India | Reiterated the principle from Charles K. Skaria, emphasizing that if a qualification is acquired before the relevant date, the mode of proof is secondary. |
Judgment
| Submission | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| FCI’s argument that experience certificate was required with the application | Rejected. The Court noted that the advertisement did not explicitly require the certificate with the application. |
| FCI’s argument that the relieving letter was not sufficient proof | Rejected. The Court noted that the FCI did not inform the candidate about the insufficiency of the letter during document verification and could have asked for additional documents. |
| FCI’s argument that subsequent certificates cannot be considered | Rejected. The Court held that the essential requirement was the possession of the experience, and the mode of proof was secondary. |
| Rimjhim’s argument that she possessed the required experience | Accepted. The Court considered the certificates produced by the candidate and held that she fulfilled the eligibility criteria. |
| Rimjhim’s argument that non-submission with application was a minor irregularity | Accepted. The Court held that the non-submission with the application was not fatal to her case. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court:
- Charles K. Skaria v. Dr. C. Mathew (1980) 2 SCC 752: The Court relied on this case to distinguish between the essential requirement of possessing a qualification and the mode of proving it. The Court held that the essential requirement was the possession of the one year’s experience, and the mode of proof was secondary.
- Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE and others (2005) 9 SCC 779: The Court followed this case, which reiterated the principle that if a qualification is acquired before the relevant date, the mode of proof is secondary.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that substance should prevail over form. The Court emphasized that the essential requirement was that the candidate possessed the one year’s experience in translation, and the mode of proving it was secondary. The Court also noted that the advertisement did not explicitly require the experience certificate to be submitted with the application, and the FCI had the option to ask for additional documents during the verification process but did not.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Substance over form | 40% |
| Advertisement ambiguity | 30% |
| FCI’s failure to seek additional documents | 30% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact (Consideration of factual aspects of the case) | 30% |
| Law (Legal considerations) | 70% |
The court’s reasoning was step-by-step. First, it determined that the advertisement did not mandate the submission of the experience certificate with the application. Second, it found that the candidate did possess the required experience. Third, it emphasized that the FCI could have asked for additional documentary evidence but failed to do so. Therefore, the court concluded that the rejection of the candidate’s application was not justified. The court rejected the formalistic approach of the FCI and held that the essential requirement was the possession of the experience, not the mode of proving it.
The Court considered the argument that the experience certificate was not submitted with the application and rejected it. The Court also considered the argument that the certificate produced was only a relieving letter and not an experience certificate and rejected it. The Court emphasized that the FCI should have asked for additional documents if they had any doubts regarding the experience of the candidate.
The Supreme Court held that the Division Bench of the High Court was right in setting aside the action of the FCI. The Court observed that the essential requirement was the possession of the qualification before the relevant date, and the mode of proof was secondary. The Court quoted from Charles K. Skaria v. Dr. C. Mathew (1980) 2 SCC 752:
“What is essential is the possession of a diploma before the given date; what is ancillary is the safe mode of proof of the qualification.”
The Court also quoted from the same case:
“To confuse between a fact and its proof is blurred perspicacity.”
The Court further quoted:
“To make mandatory the date of acquiring the additional qualification before the last date for application makes sense. But if it is unshakeably shown that the qualification has been acquired before the relevant date, to invalidate this merit factor because proof, though indubitable, was adduced a few days later but before the selection or in a manner not mentioned in the prospectus, but still above-board, is to make procedure not the handmaid but the mistress and form not as subservient to substance but as superior to the essence.”
There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The decision was unanimous.
Key Takeaways
- ✓ Employers cannot reject candidates solely for not submitting experience certificates with the application if the advertisement does not explicitly mandate it.
- ✓ The essential requirement is the possession of the qualification, and the mode of proof is secondary.
- ✓ Employers should seek additional documents if they have doubts about a candidate’s qualifications during the document verification process.
- ✓ This judgment reinforces the principle that substance should prevail over form in employment matters.
Directions
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and directed the FCI to consider the case of the original writ petitioner for appointment on merits, if all other conditions stand satisfied.
Specific Amendments Analysis
There are no specific amendments discussed in the judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that an employer cannot reject a candidate for not submitting an experience certificate with the application if the advertisement does not explicitly require it, and if the candidate possesses the required experience. This judgment reinforces the principle that substance should prevail over form and that procedural technicalities should not be used to deny meritorious candidates their legitimate rights. There is no change in the previous positions of law, but this case clarifies the application of the existing law on the distinction between essential requirements and the mode of proof.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Food Corporation of India, upholding the High Court’s decision. The Court emphasized that the essential requirement was the possession of the qualification, and the mode of proof was secondary. The Court held that the FCI was not justified in rejecting the candidate’s application based on a procedural technicality, especially when the candidate possessed the required experience. This judgment reinforces the principle that substance should prevail over form in employment matters.