Courts Supreme Court
Supreme Court rules recruitment ambiguity must favor candidate
The case concerns a dispute over the eligibility of a candidate for the post of Librarian, specifically whether experience gained while pursuing a Master's degree counts toward the required three years of experience.
The Supreme Court resolved the ambiguity in the recruitment advertisement in favor of the candidate.
Who it concerns: Appellant: Irfan Ahmad Hakak; Respondents: Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors.; Bench: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekar.
What the court decided
- Set aside the High Court judgments dated 10th July 2025 and 27th December 2025.
- Affirmed the Central Administrative Tribunal's decision directing the respondents to offer the post of Librarian to the appellant.
- Interfered with the Tribunal's direction regarding consequential service benefits (seniority and pay fixation) from the date of the last candidate's appointment.
Also in the document
- The Court held that ambiguity or vagueness in prescribed qualifications should be construed to the benefit of the candidate.
- The Court noted that the Division Bench of the High Court erred by expanding the scope of the dispute and undertaking an exercise normally conducted by the employer.
- The judgment is marked as Non-Reportable.
How this was written
An AI model running on our own computer read the government document and wrote this summary. No person has checked it.
✓ Figures checked. Every number in this summary was found in the document by an automated check.
That check compares numbers only. It cannot confirm that the wording says what the document says — so the original document is always the authority.
The original document
Supreme Court of India — orders & judgments
Court order · 15 Oct 2026
Read it here
Discussion
No one has discussed this document yet.