Administrative delay in issuing an NOC cannot defeat an otherwise eligible candidate’s consideration.

Rashmi, then employed at AIIMS, New Delhi, applied for the post of Staff Nurse Grade-I (Nursing Sister) at AIIMS, Rajkot.

She requested a No Objection Certificate (NOC) on 17 October 2023, submitted her online application on 4 November 2023, before the 6 November deadline, but received the NOC only on 7 November 2023.

She scored 61.75 marks against the UR cut-off of 58.5, but was not called for document verification and was later informed that her candidature was disqualified because she had not uploaded documents supporting age relaxation.

The respondents opposed the application, including on the ground that approximately 23 selected candidates had not been joined as parties.

1. Whether Rashmi’s candidature could be rejected for not uploading the NOC by the application deadline when she had applied for it in time and its late issuance was attributable to administrative delay.

2. Whether Clause 7 of the advertisement required the NOC to be uploaded with the application as a mandatory condition, notwithstanding the requirement to produce it at document verification.

3. Whether the subsequent NOC could be considered in determining Rashmi’s entitlement to age relaxation and further consideration for appointment.

Clause 7 of the advertisement required applicants already in government service to upload an NOC with the online application and to produce it at document verification and before relieving.

The Tribunal applied the principle in Narender Singh v. State of Haryana (2022) 3 SCC 286, as discussed in Kumari Laxmi Saroj v. State of U.P., Civil Appeal No. 9040 of 2022, that an applicant should not be penalised for a delay or omission not attributable to them.

It also relied on Seema Kumari Sharma v. State of H.P., (1998) 9 SCC 128, and Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, (2016) 4 SCC 754, for the principle that a later-produced certificate may be considered where the candidate’s underlying entitlement is otherwise established and the certificate’s validity is not disputed.

The Tribunal further cited General Manager, Southern Railway v. Ranga Chari, 1962 (2) SCR 586, and State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO, (2005) 3 SCC 752, in support of a non-pedantic approach favouring substantial justice.

The Tribunal construed Clause 7 harmoniously: although it required upload of the NOC with the application, it also contemplated production at document verification.

Rashmi had sought the NOC within the application period, submitted her application before the deadline, and obtained the NOC the next day; the Tribunal found the delay attributable to the issuing authority rather than to her.

Given that she had scored above the UR cut-off and the NOC was available for verification, the Tribunal held that the upload requirement should not defeat consideration of her candidature or entitlement to age relaxation solely because of that administrative delay.

It directed the respondents to consider her candidature and, if she satisfies the other eligibility conditions and is entitled under the applicable rules and merit position, issue an offer of appointment within two months.

Appointment may be made against an available or future vacancy, or through a supernumerary post, as permitted by the rules.

The Tribunal also granted notional seniority and consequential benefits from the date her similarly situated batch-mates were appointed, subject to adjustment for her merit position and category.

The OA was allowed in those terms; no order as to costs was made.