Ambiguous Eligibility Criteria Must Favour Candidates: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that when an advertisement prescribing eligibility criteria is ambiguous or vague, the ambiguity should not be used to impose an additional restriction on a candidate. Instead, it should be clarified by the employer or construed in favour of a candidate who prima facie possesses the required qualifications, Court held.

A Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar made the observation while setting aside a Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court judgment that had held a candidate ineligible for the post of Librarian based on its interpretation of an ambiguous experience requirement in the recruitment advertisement.

Court was dealing with an appeal filed by Irfan Ahmad Hakak, who had applied for the post of Librarian under the Law Department. The dispute arose over the requirement of three years' experience mentioned in the recruitment advertisement.

The high court had held that the three years' experience was directly connected to the educational qualification of M.Lib and, therefore, could be acquired only after obtaining that qualification.

The high court's division bench had accordingly interfered with the Central Administrative Tribunal's decision directing Hakak's appointment. It later dismissed his review petition.

The Supreme Court disagreed with this approach.

The Bench noted that the respondents had never argued that the experience Hakak gained as an Assistant Librarian was not the experience contemplated by the advertisement. It also found that the eligibility condition itself was unclear.

"At no point in time an issue was raised by the respondents that the experience obtained by the appellant as the Assistant Librarian was not the requisite experience as envisaged under the advertisement. Secondly, the prescribed qualification under the advertisement was in fact not clear, rather quite vague," the Bench said.

Court pointed out that the advertisement did not specify whether the three years' experience had to be as a Librarian, Library Assistant or on a similar post, irrespective of the nomenclature.

It further noted that the same 2014 advertisement had separately advertised the post of Library Assistant, for which graduation with B.Lib was prescribed. Therefore, a candidate could have obtained experience while working as a Library Assistant and subsequently qualified for the post of Librarian.

Court said the respondents had made no effort to clarify this ambiguity in the advertisement.

"While so, any ambiguity or vagueness in the prescribed qualification should be construed to the benefit of the candidate who prima facie appears to possess the requisite qualifications," the Bench held.

It said the division bench had "clearly fell in error" by expanding the dispute and holding Hakak ineligible, when he was entitled to seek appointment as Librarian.

The Supreme Court set aside the high court's judgments dated July 10, 2025 and December 27, 2025 and affirmed the tribunal's direction requiring the respondents to offer Hakak the post of Librarian.

However, Court modified the tribunal's direction, granting him consequential service benefits, including seniority and pay fixation, from the date the last candidate appointed pursuant to the advertisement had joined.

The Bench held that although the Court had found that the high court wrongly denied the appointment, it could restrict consequential benefits such as seniority and pay fixation to the date of the actual appointment order instead of granting them retrospectively.

The civil appeal was accordingly allowed in these terms.

Case Title: Irfan Ahmad Hakak Vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors

Bench: Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar

Date of Judgment: October 05, 2026