Candidature cannot be cancelled for trivial errors or doubts in experience certificates after successful merit-based selection.

The petitioner, an aspirant for the post of Head Master in a Senior Secondary School under Advertisement No. 26 of 2024, secured the 387th position in the merit list.

During the third counseling on 18.03.2025, his candidature was marked "doubtful" because his uploaded experience certificate did not bear the signature of the District Programme Officer (DPO).

The petitioner contended that as per Clause 3(v) of the advertisement, an experience certificate signed by the School Principal was sufficient for the application stage, and the DPO’s counter-signature was only required at the time of appointment.

The State opposed this, arguing all certificates had to be validly issued before the cut-off date of 02.04.2024.

Interpretation of Clause 3(v) of Advertisement No. 26 of 2024, which distinguished between requirements for application (Principal’s certificate) and appointment (DPO’s counter-signature).

The principle established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vashist Narayan Kumar v. The State of Bihar and Ors. (2024) 11 SCC 785, that trivial errors or omissions in an application, which do not impact the selection process or outcome, should not result in the penalization or disqualification of a successful candidate.

The Court found that Clause 3(v) of the advertisement explicitly permitted candidates to upload certificates signed only by the Principal during the application phase, with the DPO's counter-signature being a post-selection requirement for the appointment letter.

The Court noted that the petitioner had indeed uploaded a certificate dated 28.03.2024 (prior to the cut-off) signed by the Principal and subsequently produced the counter-signed version during counseling.

Applying the principle from Vashist Narayan Kumar, the Court reasoned that the authorities were "making a mountain out of a molehill" over a triviality.

Since the petitioner's merit was undisputed and the "doubt" was unfounded, the Court held that the State should have verified the genuineness through the DPO instead of summarily rejecting the candidate.

The Court directed Respondent No. 3 (Director, Secondary Education) to verify the genuineness of the petitioner’s experience certificate and, if found authentic, issue the appointment letter for the post of Head Master within six weeks.

The Court emphasized that since vacancies were still available, the petitioner should not be deprived of the post due to a minor procedural misunderstanding.