Eligibility must be established by the prescribed cutoff date; later certificates cannot cure recruitment deficiencies.

The petitioners underwent two years of apprenticeship training in the Boiler Attendant trade at IOCL’s Guwahati Refinery from 11 February 2022 to 11 February 2024 under the Apprentices Act, 1961/1973. Their provisional certificates correctly recorded the trade as “Boiler Attendant”; however, the final Certificates of Proficiency issued on 9 August 2024 incorrectly mentioned the subject as “Bachelor of Science”.

IOCL’s recruitment advertisement dated 20 July 2024 prescribed, for the post of Junior Engineering Assistant-IV (P&U), possession of a National Apprenticeship Certificate in Boiler Attendant, duly endorsed as equivalent to the Second-Class Boiler Attendant Certificate of Competency by the competent Boiler Authority. The prescribed cut-off date for possessing the qualification was 31 July 2024.

The petitioners appeared in the Computer Based Test held on 29 September 2024 and secured marks above the prescribed cut-off. They were nevertheless not shortlisted for Document Verification and the Skill/Proficiency and Physical Test.

IOCL and the Board of Practical Training subsequently corresponded with the relevant authorities regarding correction of the certificates and endorsement of equivalence. The Board clarified that the petitioners had completed 24 months’ apprenticeship in the optional trade of Boiler Attendant, but the Boiler Authority declined endorsement because the certificates described the subject as “Bachelor of Science”.

The petitioners challenged their exclusion, contending that the certificate discrepancy was a technical error and that they should be permitted to participate in the remaining stages of selection.

IOCL opposed the petition on the ground that the prescribed certificates were issued after the cut-off date and lacked the requisite endorsement.

Eligibility for recruitment must ordinarily be determined with reference to the cut-off date prescribed in the advertisement; a qualification or requisite document acquired or issued after that date cannot ordinarily cure an earlier deficiency.

The Court relied on Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 168, Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India, (2007) 4 SCC 54, and Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 11 SCC 58, which affirm that candidates must possess the prescribed qualification on the specified date.

The Court also relied on Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. v. Dharminder Singh, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1491, holding that a technical qualification acquired after the prescribed date cannot be relied upon merely because the candidate had pursued or completed the qualifying process before that date.

The recruitment advertisement independently required a National Apprenticeship Certificate in Boiler Attendant with due endorsement of equivalence to the Second-Class Boiler Attendant Certificate of Competency.

Although the Court accepted that the petitioners had actually undergone apprenticeship training in the Boiler Attendant trade, their final Certificates of Proficiency were issued only on 9 August 2024, after the 31 July 2024 cut-off date, and were not endorsed by the competent Boiler Authority as required by the advertisement.

The later correspondence and the Board’s clarification established the factual explanation for the discrepancy but could not retrospectively alter the petitioners’ eligibility position as it stood on the prescribed date.

Their participation in the CBT and marks above the cut-off did not override the requirement of satisfying the eligibility conditions, since CBT qualification only permitted eligible candidates to proceed to later stages.

Subsequent NAPS registration documents dated 3 December 2024 were also irrelevant to eligibility under the earlier NATS-based apprenticeship records.

Their actual apprenticeship training, subsequent correction efforts, and performance in the CBT did not entitle them to participate in the subsequent selection stages.

The writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.