Vague Eligibility Criteria in a Job Advertisement? Supreme Court Says the Benefit Goes to the Candidate

Case at a glance: The Supreme Court has held that “any ambiguity or vagueness in the prescribed qualification should be construed to the benefit of the candidate” who prima facie meets the requirements. It set aside a High Court ruling that had found a wait-listed candidate ineligible for a Librarian post on the basis that his experience predated his M.Lib degree.

A 2014 advertisement by the J&K Services Selection Board required “Graduation with M.Lib” and three years' experience for the Librarian post. The open-merit selectee did not attend document verification, and the first wait-listed candidate, the appellant, was to be recommended. The Tribunal directed that he be offered the post with seniority and pay fixation.

The High Court held the experience had to be after obtaining the qualification and found him ineligible, because his Assistant Librarian experience was gained while he was pursuing his M.LIS.

The Key Question Before the Court

Who resolves an ambiguity in an advertisement's eligibility criterion, and in whose favour?

Ambiguity Favours the Candidate

The Court held that the High Court “clearly fell in error in expanding the scope of the dispute” and did a task the employer should have done; the respondents had never raised this objection before the Tribunal. The advertisement was “quite vague” on whether the experience had to be as Librarian, Library Assistant or a similar post.

Because a Library Assistant post needed only Graduation with B.Lib, pre-M.Lib experience could count. The Court relied on Anil Kumar Gupta v. MCD, Sheshrao Jangluji Bagde, Shailendra Dania and K.K. Dixit.

What the Court Actually Held

• The High Court decision was set aside.
• The Tribunal's direction to offer the Librarian post was affirmed.
• The Tribunal's grant of retrospective seniority and pay fixation was interfered with.
• Ambiguity in qualifications is construed in favour of the candidate.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It protects candidates against after-the-fact narrowing of eligibility.
• It limits courts from expanding disputes beyond pleadings.
• It encourages recruiting bodies to draft criteria clearly.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For Candidates' Counsel

• Point to vagueness in the advertisement and show prima facie compliance.
• Object to new grounds not raised before the Tribunal.

For Recruiting Bodies

• Specify the nature and timing of required experience clearly.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

Whether the three years' experience had to be gained after the M.Lib and in which post.

No. The Court interfered with the Tribunal's grant of seniority and pay fixation, while affirming the offer of appointment.

Any ambiguity in prescribed qualifications is construed to the benefit of a candidate who prima facie meets them.

Conclusion