CAT Sets Aside Rejections Of 13 Driver Applicants Over Form-Document Mismatches, Orders Individual Verification Before Reconsideration

The applicants challenged rejection of their candidatures for Civil Motor Driver (Ordinary Grade), Post Code NR32623, recruited under SSC Phase-XI/2023.

The rejections arose from discrepancies between online application particulars and supporting documents, including differences in experience dates or periods, employer or organisation names, and a Class X roll number.

The applicants maintained that their documents established their qualifications and experience by the crucial date and that the discrepancies were inadvertent.

The SSC and other respondents argued that application particulars had to be accurate and that the recruitment notice permitted rejection where claims were not substantiated.

The Tribunal heard the thirteen applications together and considered the recruitment notice and the parties’ authorities.

The recruitment notice required candidates to possess the essential qualifications and experience by the crucial date and to provide experience details and supporting certificates (clauses 9.3 and 9.5).

It provided for verification of application information against original documents and rejection where information was found wrong (clause 10.8), while permitting corrections only within the prescribed correction window (clause 12); scrutiny and admission at later stages remained provisional, subject to verification (clauses 15.2 and 18.19).

The Tribunal applied the principle that an error’s effect depends on its nature and context: a technical or unsubstantial defect that does not affect the merits or identification need not invariably invalidate a candidature, as reflected in Karnail Singh v. Election Tribunal, Hissar, Pratap Singh v. Shri Krishna Gupta, and Rangilal Choudhury v. Dahu Sao.

It also relied on Vashist Narayan Kumar v. State of Bihar, which treated a trivial, bona fide error that did not affect selection or eligibility as insufficient, on the particular facts, to justify cancellation.

The Tribunal distinguished Shivayti Chaudhary v. Staff Selection Commission & Others, where the required experience details had not been furnished in the online application at the prescribed stage.

The governing principle was therefore that recruitment conditions remain binding, but a discrepancy must be assessed individually; an inadvertent error that neither alters substantive eligibility nor constitutes material misrepresentation, concealment, or suppression does not warrant automatic rejection.

The Tribunal found that the discrepancies were undisputed, but several applicants had provided supporting documents identifying their experience, employer, or relevant particulars.

It held that the notice’s requirement for accurate information did not resolve whether every discrepancy was material: the authority had to assess the specific error, verify the underlying documents, and determine its actual effect on eligibility.

The Tribunal distinguished a technical or clerical error from an omission or false declaration affecting a material requirement, and found that Shivayti Chaudhary did not control because the experience details there had not been supplied in the application itself.

Accordingly, individual verification—not automatic rejection—was required.

The respondents were directed to reconsider each candidature if the applicant met the eligibility conditions on the crucial date and had no other disqualification; the benefit would not extend to material misrepresentation, concealment, or suppression.

If found eligible, an applicant was to be considered for appointment under the recruitment conditions or, if no vacancy was available, dealt with in accordance with law against future vacancies.

The exercise was to be completed within eight weeks of receipt of a certified copy of the order, with a reasoned decision communicated to each applicant.

No monetary benefits were granted for the period of non-appointment; the applications were disposed of without costs.