A candidate possessing the prescribed qualification cannot be rejected solely for failing to upload its certificate.

NIELIT issued Advertisement No. A-12/4/2023-Administrator for four posts of Senior Assistant—two in the unreserved category and two in the OBC category.

The essential qualifications included graduation, three years’ experience in office administration, and a NIELIT CCC or higher certification.

The applicant, a general-category candidate, applied for the unreserved vacancies, appeared in the written examination, and secured 58.75 marks, above the disclosed UR cut-off of 58.25 marks.

His candidature was nevertheless not taken forward for document verification because he had not uploaded his NIELIT CCC certificate with the application.

The applicant contended that he possessed the CCC certificate before the cut-off date but could not upload it because the online application provided only one upload field for documents relating to the essential qualification.

He produced the certificate before the Tribunal.

He further relied on instances in the same recruitment process where other candidates were permitted to furnish documents not submitted with their applications, including a No Objection Certificate for one candidate applying for the post of Senior Assistant.

NIELIT argued that the CCC certificate was an essential qualification, that multiple documents could have been uploaded in a single PDF, and that the applicant’s incomplete application was rightly rejected.

Whether the applicant’s candidature could be rejected solely because he had not uploaded his NIELIT CCC certificate with the application, despite possessing the certificate before the cut-off date and securing marks above the UR cut-off?

Whether the respondents were required to afford the applicant an opportunity to produce and have his CCC certificate verified at the document-verification stage, particularly when a similar opportunity had been granted to another candidate in the same recruitment process?

Whether the respondents’ varying reasons for rejecting the applicant’s candidature—including an alleged requirement of having studied Computer in Class XII or B.Sc.—were consistent with the advertised eligibility criteria?

The Tribunal applied the eligibility conditions contained in the recruitment advertisement, under which possession of a NIELIT CCC or higher certification was an essential qualification.

It distinguished between substantive ineligibility and a procedural omission in uploading proof of an eligibility qualification: where the candidate actually possessed the prescribed qualification before the cut-off date, the omission to upload the document could be examined at document verification rather than treated as conclusive proof of ineligibility.

The Tribunal also applied the principles of fairness, consistency, and non-arbitrariness in public recruitment, holding that a candidate similarly situated in the same recruitment process should not be denied an opportunity that had been extended to another candidate without justification.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the order.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did in fact possess the requisite CCC certificate before the cut-off date and had placed it on record; therefore, he was substantively qualified for the post.

His deficiency related only to non-uploading of the certificate, and the application form itself did not appear to provide a separate field for uploading the CCC certificate.

Since he had obtained 58.75 marks against the UR cut-off of 58.25 marks, verification of the certificate could potentially affect his eligibility and selection prospects.

The Tribunal further held that NIELIT’s prior decision to permit another candidate for the same post to furnish a document omitted at the application stage undermined the justification for denying the applicant a similar opportunity.

The additional reason communicated in the first rejection email—failure to study Computer in Class XII or B.Sc.—was not part of the essential qualifications specified in the advertisement and was therefore not a sustainable basis for rejection.

NIELIT was directed to consider the applicant’s candidature for Senior Assistant by accepting and verifying his NIELIT CCC certificate along with the other required documents, without treating its non-uploading at the application stage as an impediment by itself.

If, after verification, the applicant was found otherwise eligible and within the zone of selection on merit, he was to receive all consequential benefits in accordance with the rules, except back wages.

The exercise was directed to be completed within eight weeks of receipt of the order.

The OA was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.