A post-selection equivalence certificate cannot retrospectively cure eligibility defects or reopen the recruitment process.

The petitioner applied pursuant to Advertisement No. 07/2025/Exam for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Director (Planning) and qualified in the written examination. His candidature was rejected at document verification because the nomenclature of his Master’s degree did not correspond with the qualification prescribed in the advertisement, and he was consequently not permitted to appear in the interview

After the interview and publication of the final selection list on 12.05.2026, the petitioner obtained an equivalence certificate from the Academic Council of Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University on 28.07.2026, certifying that his degree was equivalent to the prescribed qualification.

He sought quashing of the rejection and a direction for a special interview.

The PSC opposed the claim, relying on the advertisement’s requirement that candidates establish eligibility before submitting applications and that documents submitted after the last date would not be considered.

The petitioner also contended that no appointment orders had yet been issued to the selected candidates.

The Court applied the terms of the recruitment advertisement, including the requirement that candidates satisfy themselves regarding the prescribed educational qualification before submitting their applications and the stipulation that documents would not be considered after the last date.

It applied the principle that eligibility must be established at the stage prescribed by the recruitment process and that a subsequent document cannot ordinarily be used to reopen a selection process that has culminated in publication of the final selection list.

The Court considered Laxmikant Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. , 2025 INSC 1385, but distinguished it on the ground that the equivalence certificate in the present case was issued only after completion of the interview and publication of the final selection list.

Although the Academic Council was competent to certify equivalence, its certificate was issued only on 28.07.2026, after the interview had been conducted and the final selection list had been published on 12.05.2026.

Under the advertisement, the petitioner was required to establish his eligibility at the application or, at the latest, document-verification stage. Since no equivalence had been established before the recruiting authority at the relevant stage, the subsequent certificate could not retrospectively cure the deficiency.

The absence of appointment orders did not create a right to reopen the concluded selection process, and granting a special interview would have allowed the petitioner to participate on the basis of a qualification established only after the selection process had substantially concluded.

Accordingly, Laxmikant Sharma did not assist the petitioner because the issue was not the academic authority’s power to determine equivalence, but the impermissibility of relying on a belated determination to reopen the recruitment process.

The writ petition was dismissed.