1. Eligibility Criteria Clarified: The Court emphasized that an advertisement for recruitment must explicitly state all required qualifications and criteria. Silent clauses cannot be arbitrarily interpreted post-selection.
2. Interpretation of Experience Clause: The phrase "10 years of experience in a commercial organization with more than 1000 employees" cannot be restricted to a single office or city unless expressly specified.
3. Consistency in Precedent: The Court followed the precedents set in Suhas Sudamrao Chaure and Tushar Manohar Gandre, asserting that candidates meeting advertised criteria cannot be disqualified based on unwarranted interpretations.
4. Judicial Mandate for Appointment: MSRTC directed to appoint the petitioner, affirming eligibility under Advertisement No. 1/2018.

I. Introduction (Paras 1-3):

• Nature of Case: Petitioner challenges MSRTC's decision canceling his candidacy for the post of Divisional Controller under Advertisement No. 1/2018.
• Primary Relief Sought: Quashing of the impugned decision and issuance of an appointment letter.

II. Factual Background (Paras 4-5):

• Advertisement and Application: MSRTC invited applications for Divisional Controller; petitioner applied, asserting 10 years' experience with ECIL Rapiscan Ltd, which he claimed met the organizational size criterion of 1000+ employees.
• Grounds for Rejection: MSRTC rejected the application, contending the Pune office of ECIL Rapiscan Ltd did not meet the employee threshold.

III. Legal Framework and Precedents (Paras 7-10):

• Experience Clause (Para 7): Advertisement No. 1/2018 specified experience in commercial organizations with 1000+ employees but did not define "commercial organization" or restrict employee count to a specific location.
• Precedents:
  • Suhas Sudamrao Chaure: Eligibility must align with explicitly stated advertisement terms.
  • Tushar Manohar Gandre: Post-advertisement interpretations or additional criteria are impermissible.

IV. Court’s Analysis and Findings (Paras 12-15):

• Ambiguity in Advertisement (Para 12): MSRTC’s interpretation of "commercial organization" was deemed arbitrary. The Court noted ECIL Rapiscan Ltd met the threshold if considered as a whole.
• Unjust Rejection (Para 13): Rejection based on the employee threshold being restricted to one office was found unreasonable.

V. Final Directions (Paras 18-19):

• Relief Granted: MSRTC's decision was quashed. The Court directed the appointment of the petitioner as Divisional Controller within three months.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Article 309, Constitution of India: Referred to in the context of Recruitment Rules and their supremacy over administrative circulars.
2. Precedent Cases:
   • Subhash, S/o Shriram Dhonde v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (1995 SUPP (3) SCC 332) – Eligibility criteria must be based on explicit rules, not post-hoc interpretations.
   • Sonali Sahadeo Avhad v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. – Experience acquired prior to qualification cannot be discounted unless explicitly stated.

Ratio Decidendi:

Recruitment criteria outlined in an advertisement are binding, and any ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the candidate. Post-advertisement changes or arbitrary interpretations undermine the rule of law and are impermissible.

Subjects:

Employment Law, Administrative Law, Recruitment Processes

MSRTC, Bombay High Court, Recruitment Criteria, Administrative Disputes, Precedent, Employment Law