Ashish Kumar v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Background
The appellant, a postgraduate in Psychology, applied for the post of "Psychologist" under a 2001 advertisement by the U.P. Social Welfare Department. He cleared the written exam and interview and was placed in the merit list, but was later told at the document-verification stage that he was ineligible because he lacked a teaching qualification (L.T./B.T./B.Ed.). His writ petition and subsequent appeal and review before the Allahabad High Court were all dismissed on the view that the post required both a Psychology degree and a teaching certificate.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court examined the original Hindi-language advertisement and found that the use of the stroke symbol ("/") between "Graduate/L.T./B.T.B.Ed." indicated alternative qualifications (any one of them, each in the subject of Psychology), not a requirement to hold all of them together: contrary to how the State and High Court had read it. The Court also examined the actual 1991 statutory recruitment rules, which prescribed only an M.A. in Psychology as the essential qualification (B.Ed. being merely preferential), and held that where an advertisement conflicts with statutory rules, the rules prevail. Since the appellant held a postgraduate degree in Psychology, he was fully qualified, and denying him appointment was arbitrary and illegal. The Court set aside the High Court's judgments, allowed the appeals, and directed the State to issue the appellant his appointment order within two months.
Lesson Learnt
When a government job advertisement's wording conflicts with the underlying statutory recruitment rules, the statutory rules control: a candidate cannot be denied a job based on a stricter or ambiguous reading of the advertisement if they meet the qualification actually fixed by law.