"Eligibility Contested: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Fair Interpretation in Recruitment Dispute"
➡️ This is a *case where the petitioner, Birendra Singh Yadav, was not allowed to participate in an interview for the post of General Manager (Contractual) in the Project Implementation Unit of Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority. The refusal was based on the contention that he did not meet the requisite qualifications as per the advertisement dated 23.08.2024. ➡️The Primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the petitioner met the criteria specified in the advertisement for the post and if the respondent's interpretation of the eligibility clause was valid.
➡️Petitioner claimed that he fulfills the requirement of 15 years of experience as an Assistant Engineer, including 10 years of field experience. → He argued that his work as an In-charge Executive Engineer should not disqualify him. →Contended that the respondents misinterpreted the exclusion clause. ➡️Respondent asserted that the petitioner did not have 15 years of substantive experience as an Assistant Engineer, as part of his tenure included holding additional charge. → Highlighted that at the time of retirement, the petitioner served as an In-charge Executive Engineer, disqualifying him under the exclusion clause. ➡️The Court observed ⬇️ → The petitioner held the requisite qualifications, including a civil engineering degree and the required experience. → The Court found that the petitioner's tenure as an In-charge Executive Engineer did not negate his eligibility, as it was a higher qualification. → It emphasized that the clause requiring 15 years of experience as Assistant Engineer did not mandate substantive capacity alone. ➡️The Court directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's application and, if necessary, arrange for a fresh interview to assess his suitability for the post. The Court held that higher qualifications or responsibilities do not disqualify a candidate for positions requiring lower qualifications. Petitioner’s exclusion was unreasonable and based on a flawed interpretation of the eligibility clause. *Case Birendra Singh Yadav v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Before the Jabalpur bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court WP 31629/2024 Heard by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dwivedi J
