Termination of Employment for Company Secretary: Supreme Court's Final Verdict

The case of Ritu Bhatia vs. Ministry of Civil Supplies, Consumer Affairs & Public Distribution reached the Supreme Court of India after the petitioner, Ritu Bhatia, contested her termination from the post of Company Secretary at Central Railside Warehouse Company Limited. The primary contention revolved around the eligibility criteria, specifically the requirement of five years’ post-qualification experience ‘as’ a Company Secretary.

The appellant had previously filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court, which was dismissed. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld the judgment, affirming that the petitioner did not meet the experience requirement. The case was then brought before the Supreme Court for final adjudication.

Petitioner’s Arguments

Shri Sunil Kumar, representing the petitioner, argued that:

The High Court erred in holding that the petitioner did not meet the eligibility criteria of having five years’ experience ‘as’ a Company Secretary.
Although she was appointed as a Management Trainee and later as an Assistant Company Secretary, she performed duties similar to that of a Company Secretary.
Her tenure as a Management Trainee should be counted towards the requisite five-year experience.
The term ‘as’ in the eligibility criteria should be interpreted broadly, meaning experience in a similar capacity rather than strict employment as a Company Secretary.
Referring to the case of Dr. Asim Kumar Bose v. Union of India, it was argued that the word ‘as’ should be given a broad interpretation, considering the nature of duties performed.

Respondent’s Arguments

Shri Gourab Banerji, representing the respondents, countered that:

The advertisement for the post clearly stated that five years of experience ‘as’ a Company Secretary was mandatory.
The requirement was intended to ensure that candidates had served in a responsible position as a Company Secretary in a PSU or a reputed private company.
The petitioner’s experience as a Management Trainee and Assistant Company Secretary could not be considered equivalent to experience ‘as’ a Company Secretary.
Past job titles and responsibilities clearly indicated that she did not fulfill the eligibility criteria.
The precedent cited by the petitioner (Dr. Asim Kumar Bose case) was not applicable to the present case as the context was different.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, after examining the arguments and documents, held that:

The eligibility criteria explicitly required five years of experience ‘as’ a Company Secretary.
The petitioner had worked in roles such as Management Trainee and Assistant Company Secretary, which were distinct from that of a Company Secretary.
Interpreting the word ‘as’ broadly would alter the eligibility criteria, which was not permissible.
The Court concurred with the High Court’s finding that the petitioner did not meet the prescribed eligibility conditions.

The judgment stated: “The word ‘as’ used in the advertisement should be given a literal meaning. The respondent is the author of the advertisement and they are the best person to consider what they meant by using the word ‘as’. It is the specific case on behalf of the respondents that the intention behind the advertisement was that the applicant must have been appointed ‘as’ a Company Secretary in PSU/Company of repute and functioned as such for five years to be eligible for appointment.”

It further emphasized that allowing experience in similar roles to count towards the requirement would effectively change the nature of eligibility criteria.

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the petitioner did not meet the prescribed eligibility conditions. The Court upheld the High Court’s decision and ruled that the termination of the petitioner’s employment was justified.

This case reaffirms the principle that eligibility criteria in job advertisements must be interpreted as they stand, without room for broad interpretations that alter their meaning.

Petitioner Name: Ritu Bhatia.
Respondent Name: Ministry of Civil Supplies, Consumer Affairs & Public Distribution.
Judgment By: Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice M.R. Shah.
Place Of Incident: Delhi.
Judgment Date: 04-02-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Ritu Bhatia vs Ministry of Civil Su Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 04-02-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Termination Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by L. Nageswara Rao
See all petitions in Judgment by Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category