RITU BHATIA versus MINISTRY OF CIVIL SUPPLIES CONSUMER AFFAIRS & PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION AND OTHERS

Citation: [2019] 3 S.C.R. 663 · Decided: 05-02-2019 · 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
663
RITU BHATIA
v.
MINISTRY OF CIVIL SUPPLIES CONSUMER AFFAIRS &
PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 1467 of 2019)
FEBRUARY 05, 2019
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Service Law –  Termination – Respondent no.2 invited
applications for the post of Company Secretary – Advertisement
provided for  five years post qualification mandatory experience
as a Company Secretary as on 30.11.2013 in a PSU/Private
Company of repute – Appellant applied for the post of Company
Secretary and was appointed to the post of Company Secretary –
Appellant’s service terminated by respondent no.2 on the ground
that she did not have the requisite five years’ experience for the
post of Company Secretary – Challenge by appellant before the
High Court, dismissed – Held: As per appellant she was working as
Assistant Company Secretary for the period between June 2008 to
May 2010 in Utkal Investments Limited, as Management Trainee in
the Delhi Stock Exchange Association Limited for the period between
April 2005 to June 2006, and as Management Trainee in ONGC
for the period between May 2003 to June 2004 – Her appointment
as Management Trainee cannot be equated and/or considered as
appointment ‘as’ a Company Secretary – Word ‘as’ used in the
advertisement should be given a literal meaning – It cannot be said
that the appellant had, while working as a ‘Management Trainee’,
functioned ‘as’ a ‘Company Secretary – Word ‘as’ and the words
‘experience as Company Secretary’ used in the advertisement are
very clear and means that the candidate ought to be appointed and
worked ‘as’ a Company Secretary – Appellant had no experience
of five years ‘as Company Secretary and she did not fulfil the
eligibility criteria of having five years post qualification experience
‘as’ Company Secretary as on 30.11.2013 – Services of the appellant
rightly terminated.
[2019] 3 S.C.R. 663
663
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
664
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 3 S.C.R.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1  As per the case of the appellant she was working
as Assistant Company Secretary for the period between June
2008 to May 2010 in Utkal Investments Limited and she was
working as Management Trainee in the Delhi Stock Exchange
Association Limited for the period between April 2005 to June
2006, and as the Management Trainee in ONGC for the period
between May 2003 to June 2004. Her appointment as
Management Trainee cannot be equated and/or considered as
appointment ‘as’ a Company Secretary.  [Para 7.2][670-D-E]
1.2 The word ‘as’ used in the advertisement should be given
a literal meaning. The respondent is the author of the
advertisement and they are the best person to consider what
they meant by using the word ‘as’. It is the specific case on behalf
of the respondents that the intention behind the advertisement
was that the applicant must have been appointed ‘as’ a Company
Secretary in PSU/Company of repute and functioned as such for
five years to be eligible for appointment. According to the
respondent, the purpose was that the person should have held
the position of a Company Secretary in a PSU/Company of repute
and discharged the statutory functions as such i.e. should have
held the position of responsibility. Therefore, when the word ‘as’
is specifically used, the same is to be considered strictly and
therefore the experience of the appellant, while working as a
‘Management Trainee’ cannot be considered as an experience
of working ‘as’ a Company Secretary and/or it cannot be said that
she was appointed ‘as’ a Company Secretary. If the period during
which the appellant had worked as a ‘Management Trainee’ is
excluded, in that case, admittedly, the appellant would not be
fulfilling the requisite eligibility criteria of having been appointed
‘as’ a Company Secretary in a PSU/Company of repute. It cannot
be said that the appellant had, while working as a ‘Management
Trainee’, functioned ‘as’ a ‘Company Secretary. If submission on
behalf of the appellant is accepted that by performing duties as
‘Management Trainee’ she was also performing some duties as
‘Company Secretary’ and therefore she can be said to have fulfilled
the eligibility criteria of having been appointed ‘as’ a Company
Secretary, in that case, it would be against the intent. If the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
665
intention was such, in that case, the wording in the advertisement
should have been that the candidate should have the experience
of the similar nature of work as “Company Secretary”. In the
adverti

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