IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that both the certification and appropriate evidence had to be independently met to establish eligibility, and the employer was justified in insisting upon the specified evidence as per the advertisement.

JUDGMENT :

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.

1. Heard Sri Gajendra Pratap, Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior counsels for the appellants and Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Delay in filing the Special Appeal Defective Nos. 954 of 2023 and 957 of 2023 is explained to the satisfaction of the Court. Delay is, accordingly, condoned.

3. This intra-court appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 15.9.2023, passed by learned Single Judge in a batch of writ petitions with leading Writ Petition No. 72605 2011 (Subodh Chandra Srivastava vs. Union of India and Others). For the reasons contained in the judgment of learned Single the writ petitions filed by the petitioners have been dismissed. Thus aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred the instant appeals.

4. An advertisement came to be issued by Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’) on 7.1.2011, inviting applications for appointment to various posts including thirteen posts of Assistant General Manager (Legal). The number of posts were subsequently increased to seventeen. Applications were to be submitted online on the official website of the Corporation. The qualification for appointment to the post stood specified, as under:

“(i) Degree in Law from recognized university.

(ii) At least 5 years experience in legal work in Central/State Government or a Public/Private Sector Undertaking or three years practice at Bar.

Practice at Bar: Apart from providing the certificate from the concerned Bar Council/Association, the candidate shall be required to certify with appropriate evidence that she/he has represented in at least 5 matters in a year while practising at the Bar.”

5. The appellants cleared written test on 3.4.2011 and were called for interview on 13.5.2011. Name of none of the petitioner-appellants, however, figured in the final list of selected candidates published by the Corporation on 10.10.2011. In response to a query made under the RTI Act the Corporation disclosed that the petitioner in the leading case had secured 83 marks out of 120. Petitioner-appellants asserted that they have secured marks higher than the cut-off marks obtained by the last selected candidate and, therefore, the respondents have acted arbitrarily in discarding their candidature.

6. In the counter affidavit filed before the learned Single Judge the Corporation took the plea that the petitioner-appellants did not meet the eligibility criteria specified in the advertisement and, consequently, their candidature was not accepted. The specific case of the Corporation was that the petitioner-appellants had not produced appropriate evidence that he/she has represented in atleast 5 matters in a year while practising at the Bar. Learned Single Judge has noticed Para 9 of the counter affidavit filed by the Corporation which, for the sake of convenience, is reproduced hereinafter:

“Para-9: That the Para 10 of the writ petition is wholly misconceived, incorrect hence denied. It is humbly submitted that it has been specifically and clearly laid down in the Recruitment Advertisement. Under the column "General Information and instruction" that the 'Candidates should satisfy themselves that they fulfill the required qualification, experience, age etc, before applying for the post. In case it is found that the information furnished by a candidate is defective in any manner or has deliberately suppressed information, the candidature will be summarily rejected as and when it comes to the notice of the Management. The candidates are advised to satisfy themselves fully about the correctness of the information furnished, if found ineligible at any stage the candidature would be rejected. Thus the onus of proving one's eligibility vested entirely on the candidate.

The selection process for post of AGM (Legal) comprising of a written test and interview was strictly conducted in accordance with the said conditions which was re