The employer cannot declare a candidate ineligible after fulfilling advertised qualifications; experience from a connected commercial organization is valid despite differing employee distribution across multiple locations.

JUDGMENT :

Ashwin D. Bhobe, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. The Petitioner is held ineligible to the post of Divisional Controller, on the ground that the Petitioner does not possess the requisite 10 years experience in a commercial organization with more than 1000 employees (impugned decision). The Respondent No.1 (MSRTC), by the impugned decision has canceled the entire selection process.

3. By the present petition, the Petitioner has prayed for the following substantive relief :-

“(A) This writ petition may kindly be allowed.

(B) By issuing the writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order of direction in the like nature and be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned decision dated 15.07.2019 issued by Respondent No. 1.

(C) By issuing the writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the like nature and be pleased to direct the respondent no.1 to consider the representations made by the petitioner and issue appointment letter to the petitioner for the post of Divisional Controller.”

Factual Matrix :

4. Vide Advertisement No. 1/2018, the Respondent No.1 invited applications to the post of Divisional Controller. Petitioner contends that he fulfills and satisfies all the requisite qualifications prescribed in the Advertisement No. 1/2018, as such eligible to be appointed to the post of Divisional Controller. Petitioner alongwith his application submitted experience certificate issued by ECIL Rapiscan Ltd, certifying the Petitioner having the required experience of 10 years. Petitioner contends that ECIL and Rapiscan Ltd are connected through a joint venture, having its offices at Hyderabad, Mumbai, Bangalore, Chennai, Kolkata, Pune and Ahmedabad with more than 1000 employees. Respondent No. 1 on a contention that the office of ECIL Rapiscan at Pune, having less than the prescribed number of employees has held the Petitioner ineligible. The impugned decision cancels the selection process. Hence, the present Petition.

5. Respondent No.1 has opposed the petition on the grounds raised in the Affidavit-in-reply dated 01.08.2024 filed through Shri. Tulsidas Bharsat, General Manager (P&IR), MSRTC. Respondent No. 1 contends that the documents submitted by the Petitioner in respect of the experience, is of one company by name ECIL Rapiscan Ltd and according to their confidential report, the said company has one office at Pune, with a strength of workers/employees which is less than 1000.Respondent No. 1 therefore prays for dismissal of the Petition.

6. We have heard and considered the submissions of the learned Advocates for the respective sides and perused the records. From the rival contentions urged in the present Petition, the point for determination that falls for consideration, is whether Respondent No.1 was right in holding the Petitioner ineligible to the post of Divisional Controller, on the ground that the Petitioner does not meet the requirements of the Advertisement No. 1/2018 i.e. experience of 10 years, from a commercial organization with more than 1000 employees ?

Analysis :-

7. Vide Advertisement No. 1/2018, Respondent No.1 invited applications from eligible candidates for the post of Divisional Controller. Condition in the Advertisement No. 1/2018, which is relevant for the present petition is transcribed herein below:-

“(a) First Class degree from any recognized Instituted Or Second Class Degree from recognized Institute and Post Graduate Degree or Diploma Business Management, Transport Management, Labour/Employees Management fro