FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA versus RIMJHIM

Citation: [2019] 6 S.C.R. 897 · Decided: 09-04-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
897
 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
v.
        RIMJHIM
(Civil Appeal No. 3600 of 2019)
APRIL 09, 2019
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Service Law – Appointment – Appellant invited applications
for the post of Assistant Grade-II (Hindi) by publishing
advertisement – Respondent applied – Short-listed – However, she
did not receive the final letter of appointment – Writ petition filed
by the respondent – Dismissed – Division Bench allowed the appeal
– Plea of appellant that  the respondent was not finally selected as
she did not produce the certificate of one year’s experience of
translation from English to Hindi and vice-versa – Held: In the
advertisement there was no such requirement – What was provided
in the advertisement was that a candidate must have one year’s
experience of translation from English to Hindi and vice-versa along
with the other qualifications – Advertisement did not provide that a
candidate shall produce the certificate of experience along with
the application – Division Bench rightly observed that non-
production of the certificate along with the application cannot be
said to be fatal to the case of the respondent and on that ground
she could not have been denied the appointment, if otherwise found
meritorious – Management at the time of verification of the
documents, did not thought it fit to call upon the respondent to
produce any additional documentary evidence in support of her
experience – If the management would have called for such
additional documentary evidence, the respondent would have
produced the certificates, which she subsequently did produce before
the High Court – Appellant has not doubted the certificates dated.
14.01.2015 and 18.07.2016 issued by the erstwhile employer of
the respondent – Division Bench rightly held, considering the
aforesaid two certificates, that the respondent was having one year’s
experience of translation from English to Hindi and vice-versa and
therefore fulfilled all the requisite essential requirements/
qualifications and therefore was required to be considered for
[2019] 6 S.C.R. 897
   897
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
898
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
appointment on merits – Appellant to consider the case of the
respondent for appointment on merits, if all other conditions stand
satisfied.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1  The FCI have not doubted the certificates dated
14.01.2015 and 18.07.2016 issued by the erstwhile employer of
the original writ petitioner.  In the advertisement there was no
requirement to produce the certificate of one year’s experience
along with the application. What was provided in the
advertisement is that a candidate must have one year’s experience
of translation from English to Hindi and vice-versa along with
the other qualifications.  The advertisement does not provide
specifically and/or provide that a candidate shall produce the
certificate of experience along with the application. Therefore,
the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly observed that
non-production of one year’s experience certificate along with
the application cannot be said to be fatal to the case of the original
writ petitioner and on that ground the original writ petitioner could
not have been denied the appointment, if otherwise she is found
to be meritorious.  [Paras 8, 9][905-C-G]
1.2 At the time of verification of the documents, the original
writ petitioner was not informed/told that the relieving-cum-
experience letter dated 27.08.2014 is not sufficient to establish
the essential requirement of one year’s experience.  The original
writ petitioner was also not told/informed at the time of verification
of documents on 18.01.2016 that certificate of one year’s
experience is lacking. Clause 33 of the advertisement, which was
also considered by the Division Bench of the High Court, provides
that the management reserves the right to call for any additional
documentary evidence in support of educational qualification &
experience of the applicant. The management at the time of
verification of the documents, did not thought it fit to call upon
the applicant to produce any additional documentary evidence in
support of her experience. The management could have called
for any additional documentary evidence in support of experience
of the applicant. If the management would have called for the
additional documentary evidence in support of experience of the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
899
applicant, in that case, the original writ petitioner wou

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.