The Rajasthan High Court has held that a candidate cannot rely on a graduation mark-sheet which was neither disclosed at the time of applying nor used in the original application form to claim eligibility in a recruitment process long after the closure of the recruitment, even if vacancies remain. In the case at hand, the candidate had applied for a teacher post after meeting the required exam cut-off marks but had based his eligibility on the Senior Secondary examination rather than his graduation degree. Over two-and-a-half years later he filed a writ petition seeking to have his graduation marks considered, submitting the mark-sheet belatedly.
The Court noted that the candidate had not indicated in his application that he held a graduation degree—he relied instead on his Senior Secondary result—and there was no amendment to the application or corrective submission in the qualifying stage. The recruitment process had closed and the timeline for evaluation had lapsed. The bench held that allowing the candidate to alter his basis of eligibility at such a belated stage would set a dangerous precedent and undermine the integrity and finality of the recruitment exercise.
In its analysis, the Court emphasised that recruitment authorities are obligated to assess applications strictly on the basis of the information furnished in the original application form or within any correction window made available prior to the last date. It stressed that any attempt to supplement or alter eligibility credentials after the deadline, especially after considerable time has passed and selection decisions have been made, is impermissible. The Court held that vacancies remaining in the recruitment do not provide a justification for such post-factum alterations of eligibility.
Consequently, the High Court allowed the State’s appeal, set aside the Single Judge’s order which had directed consideration of the candidature based on the belatedly disclosed graduation mark-sheet, and held that the candidate’s claim could not be entertained. The decision reinforces that eligibility criteria must be met and documented at the time of application, and corrections or additions thereafter—as a matter of convenience or oversight—will not be countenanced.
The judgment underscores the importance of procedural discipline in public recruitments and the principle that relief cannot be granted to a candidate relying on newly disclosed credentials long after the process has closed simply because some vacancies remain unfilled.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.