9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 376 - SC - Indian LawsAppointment to the post of Company Secretary in Respondent company - requirement of requisite five years experience for the post of Company Secretary - whether in the facts and circumstances of the case can it be said that the appellant fulfilled the eligibility criteria mentioned in the advertisement of having experience of five years as a Company Secretary and/or, can it be said that the period during which the appellant worked as Management Trainee and/or Assistant Company Secretary be considered for treating the appellant having been appointed as a Company Secretary so as to become eligible for the post of Company Secretary which was advertised? - Held that - It can be seen from the relevant appointment orders, and even as per the case of the appellant that she was working as Assistant Company Secretary for the period between June 2008 to May 2010 in Utkal Investments Limited and that she was working as Management Trainee in the Delhi Stock Exchange Association Limited for the period between April 2005 to June 2006, and as the Management Trainee in ONGC for the period between May 2003 to June 2004 - Her appointment as Management Trainee cannot be equated and/or considered as appointment as a Company Secretary. In the case of Dr. Asim Kumar Bose, 1982 (12) TMI 224 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , this Court observed and held that the provisions contained in Rule 8(2A) and paragraph 3 of Annexure I to the Second Schedule of the Central Health Service Rules must be interpreted in a broad and liberal sense so as to avoid any injustice to person in specialists Grade like the appellant. This Court observed that the Rules nowhere provide that the teaching experience gained by a Specialist in a teaching hospital as an Associate Professor (ex officio) shall not be counted towards the requisite teaching experience. In the present case, the word as and the words experience as Company Secretary used in the advertisement are very clear and as observed hereinabove it means the candidate ought to be appointed and worked as such as a Company Secretary - appellant did not fulfil the eligibility criteria of having five years post qualification experience as Company Secretary as on 30.11.2013, the services of the appellant have rightly been terminated. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility criteria for the position of Company Secretary. 2. Interpretation of the term "experience as a Company Secretary". 3. Validity of the termination of the appellant's services. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Eligibility Criteria for the Position of Company Secretary: The central issue in this case revolves around whether the appellant met the eligibility criteria for the position of Company Secretary as stipulated by the respondent (Central Railside Warehouse Company Limited). The advertisement required a "five years post qualification mandatory experience as a Company Secretary as on 30.11.2013 in a PSU/Private Company of repute". 2. Interpretation of the Term "Experience as a Company Secretary": The appellant argued that her experience as a Management Trainee and Assistant Company Secretary should be counted towards the required five years of experience. She claimed to have post-qualification experience of seven years and three months, including roles where she performed some functions of a Company Secretary. The appellant's counsel contended that the term "experience as a Company Secretary" should be interpreted broadly to include similar duties performed in other capacities. The respondent countered that the advertisement specifically required experience in the capacity of a Company Secretary, not merely performing similar duties. They argued that the appellant's roles as Management Trainee and Assistant Company Secretary did not meet this criterion. The Court agreed with the respondent's interpretation, stating that the word "as" should be given its literal meaning. The Court held that the term "experience as Company Secretary" meant the candidate must have been formally appointed and functioned as a Company Secretary. The Court emphasized that the respondent, as the author of the advertisement, intended for the candidate to have held the position and discharged the statutory functions of a Company Secretary. 3. Validity of the Termination of the Appellant's Services: The appellant's services were terminated on the grounds that she did not meet the eligibility criteria at the time of her application. The appellant challenged this termination, but both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court upheld the termination. The Supreme Court reviewed the material on record, including the appellant's application and supporting documents. It was found that the appellant had worked as an Assistant Company Secretary and Management Trainee but not as a Company Secretary. The Court concluded that the appellant did not fulfill the requisite eligibility criteria of having five years of experience as a Company Secretary. The Court also addressed the appellant's reliance on the case of Dr. Asim Kumar Bose v. Union of India and Others, where the term "as" was interpreted in a broader sense. However, the Court distinguished the facts of the present case from Dr. Asim Kumar Bose, noting that the advertisement's wording was clear and specific about the requirement of experience as a Company Secretary. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's appeal, upholding the High Court's decision and the termination of the appellant's services. The Court held that the appellant did not meet the eligibility criteria of having five years of post-qualification experience as a Company Secretary, as required by the advertisement. The term "experience as a Company Secretary" was interpreted to mean formal appointment and functioning in that role, not merely performing similar duties in other capacities.
|
