Candidature for public employment may be rejected for the submission of unreliable or unverifiable work experience certificates.

The Appellant applied for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) with Respondent No. 1 (Delhi Transco Ltd.) under the OBC category, following a vacancy notice dated 29.12.2021.

The recruitment required two years of work experience, and the Appellant submitted an undated experience certificate from Modern Construction Company (MCC) claiming employment from 2015 to 2019.

Respondent No. 1 rejected his candidature on 20.02.2025 after finding the certificate non-genuine, subsequently MCC issued a clarification on 09.06.2025 stating the Appellant was actually employed by a subcontractor, MGS Construction, and not directly by MCC.

After a previous round of litigation (LPA 773/2025), the High Court directed Respondent No. 1 to reconsider the Appellant’s representation in light of the new clarification.

On 11.03.2026, Respondent No. 1 again rejected the candidature, citing a lack of supporting documents (salary slips, EPF records, attendance) to verify the subcontractor experience.

The Appellant challenged this via a writ petition, which was dismissed by the Single Judge, leading to the present intra-court appeal.

1. Whether the Respondent’s rejection of the Appellant’s candidature on the grounds of questionable experience certificates was arbitrary or illegal.

2. Whether the Respondent exceeded the scope of the Court's previous directions by requiring additional documentation for verification.

The court primarily applied the principles of administrative law regarding the "essential eligibility criteria" in public recruitment and the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The court relied on the doctrine that the burden of proof lies on the candidate to establish requisite professional experience through credible and verifiable documentation.

The court emphasized that a provisional offer of appointment is contingent upon the veracity of information provided, and any concealment of material facts or submission of false information justifies disqualification.

The Court observed that the Appellant's initial submission of an undated MCC certificate, which was later contradicted by MCC itself, cast "significant doubt" on the veracity of the application.

The court reasoned that when a candidate changes their stance—from claiming direct employment with a principal company to employment with a contractor—the employer is justified in seeking contemporaneous evidence such as salary statements or EPF records to resolve the "significant ambiguity".

The Bench held that the Single Judge correctly determined that the Appellant failed to satisfy the substantive eligibility requirement of two years' experience because the certificates lacked authenticity and specific details regarding the nature of work.

The Court rejected the argument that the Respondent violated natural justice or exceeded the previous Division Bench's mandate, noting that a direction to "consider in accordance with law" necessarily includes the power to verify the adequacy and genuineness of claimed experience.

The Court held that there was no arbitrariness or illegality in the Respondent’s decision dated 11.03.2026 and Appeal was dismissed, and the Impugned Order passed by the Single Judge was upheld.