IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld that eligibility criteria for employment must be strictly adhered to, and ambiguity in advertisements should favor candidates only when clearly warranted.

JUDGMENT :

JYOTI SINGH, J.

1. This writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India laying a challenge to order dated 10.10.2017 passed by the Disciplinary Authority (‘DA’) whereby Petitioner has been removed from service of the Respondent/Central Railside Warehouse Company Limited and order dated 09.07.2018 by which the appeal was dismissed by Appellate Authority i.e. Board of Directors of the Respondent. Direction is sought to the Respondent to restore the employment of the Petitioner and reinstate him with all consequential benefits.

2. Case of the Petitioner as set out in the writ petition is that Respondent which is a Government of India Undertaking published an advertisement on 26.10.2013 inviting applications for appointment to various posts including 02 posts of Manager (General), for which the eligibility clause was as follows:-

“Officers working in Central/State Government/PSU/autonomous bodies with minimum 10 years of post qualification experience in relevant field in the Executive grade (E-0) of IDA pay scale of Rs. 12,600 - 32,500 and above out of which 3years should be in the IDA pay scale of Rs. 20,600 - 46,500 or equivalent with CTC of Rs. 8 Lakhs per annum working in a reputed private organization”

3. Considering himself eligible by his own reading and understanding of the advertisement, Petitioner applied for the post of Manager (General) as he possessed the experience of more than 10 years in a reputed private organisation including experience of more than 03 years with CTC of Rs.8 Lakhs per annum. The work experience disclosed by the Petitioner in the chronological order was as follows:-

“(i) M/s India Glycols at CTC starting from Rs. 8.51 Lakhs at the time of joining on 09/07/2007 to Rs. 13.89 lakhs + perks at the time of leaving on 07/08/2013;

(ii) M/s Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. with CTC of Rs. 8.40 lakhs for the period 04/09/2006 to 31/05/2007;

(iii) M/s Reliance Logistics Ltd. with starting CTC of Rs. 4.10 lakhs at the time of joining on 03/09/2004 and about Rs. 5 lakhs at the time of leaving on 01/05/2006;

(iv) M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd. with starting CTC of Rs. 0.75 + perks at the time of joining on 05/02/1997 to Rs. 1.75 Lakhs + perks at the time of leaving.”

4. Petitioner was shortlisted and a provisional call letter for interview was issued to him. After clearing the process of document verification, Petitioner appeared for the interview and was selected for appointment. Offer of appointment dated 13.03.2014 was issued and he was appointed w.e.f. 20.03.2014 on probation. Original documents pertaining to Petitioner’s age, qualification and work experience were again scrutinized at the time of joining as per Clause V(e) of the Offer of Appointment and no objection was raised to his experience. Petitioner successfully cleared his probation and was confirmed on the post vide Office Order dated 04.06.2015 and was granted an increment.

5. It is averred that Petitioner was legitimately expecting that he would be promoted as Deputy General Manager (E-5 Level) albeit later this post was advertised for appointment on direct recruitment basis. Petitioner also applied against the advertisement but was not selected. Representations were made against the process of selection and this led to the transfer of the Petitioner from Corporate Office to Field Location out of vindictiveness. Show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner on 16.11.2015 alleging that Petitioner did not possess the relevant work experience for appointment as Manager (General) and proposing termination of his services. Petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated 30.11.2015 bringing forth that issuance of show cause was an attempt to victimise the Petitioner as he was rightly appointed possessing the requisite experience.

6. Show cause notice was not withdrawn and Petitioner approached this Court in W.P. (C) No. 11391/2015 inter alia praying that recruitment to the post of DGM (LOM), carried