Ordinary meaning of "officer" in recruitment rules can include public-duty posts, securing reconsideration of wrongly excluded candidates.

Where a recruitment rule requires service in an "officer" or "executive office" post without defining the term, the expression is construed in its ordinary sense to include a person vested with public duties and delegated authority. On that basis, Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors in the Food and Supplies Department were treated as officer posts capable of satisfying the qualification. A candidate wrongly excluded on the mistaken view that he lacked the requisite experience was entitled to consideration for recruitment as of the relevant notification date, though relief was limited so as not to disturb the position of already selected candidates; seniority was left open.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors in the Food and Supplies Department could be treated as officers holding executive offices for the purpose of the recruitment qualification; (ii) Whether the appellant was entitled to be considered for recruitment and granted consequential relief.

Issue (i): Whether Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors in the Food and Supplies Department could be treated as officers holding executive offices for the purpose of the recruitment qualification.

Analysis: In the absence of any statutory or administrative definition, the expression "officer" had to be understood in its ordinary and common parlance sense. A person who holds an office and is vested with public functions or delegated authority can be regarded as an officer. On that footing, and having regard to the nature of duties and powers attached to the posts, Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors in the department were held to be officers, and the State had itself conceded that the posts were executive in nature.

Conclusion: The posts of Inspector and Sub-Inspector were held to be officer posts and capable of satisfying the executive-office qualification.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant was entitled to be considered for recruitment and granted consequential relief.

Analysis: Since the appellant had held the qualifying post for the requisite period, exclusion from consideration on the mistaken premise that he lacked the prescribed experience was unjustified. The Court also held that although the selected candidates were not impleaded and their settled service position could not be disturbed, this did not cure the State's wrongful exclusion of the appellant. The appropriate relief was therefore limited to directing fresh consideration of his claim on the footing that he was eligible when the recruitment process took place.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to consideration for recruitment on the basis of the 1980 notification and, if found qualified, to appointment.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the authorities were directed to reconsider the appellant for appointment on the basis of his eligibility at the relevant time, while leaving the question of seniority open.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a recruitment condition refers to an "officer" or "executive office" without definition, the term must be construed in its ordinary sense and includes a person vested with public duties and delegated authority; a candidate wrongly excluded on an erroneous view of eligibility is entitled to consideration for the post as of the relevant recruitment date.

---