Employers must verify claimed educational qualifications and grant career progression benefits if found genuine.

The applicant, a Primary Teacher at Kendriya Vidyalaya (KV) since 2015, applied for the posts of Headmaster and Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) English under the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) 2022 notification.

Her application was not forwarded by the respondents because her service records only listed B.A. and B.T.C. degrees, lacking the mandatory B.Ed. and M.A. qualifications.

The applicant contended she possessed these degrees prior to joining and that they were previously reflected in the PIMS portal and seniority lists before being removed.

The respondents claimed her initial joining forms omitted these degrees and alleged they were clerical errors or potentially fake.

While the Tribunal allowed her to appear for the exam via an interim order, her results were withheld.

1. Whether the respondents are obligated to verify the educational qualifications claimed by an employee for the purpose of career progression when a dispute arises regarding service book entries.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the declaration of her examination results and subsequent promotion benefits if her qualifications are found to be genuine.

The court applied the principle of administrative fairness and the employer's duty of verification in service jurisprudence.

It held that when an employee claims qualifications relevant for career progression under extant rules, the employer has a dual obligation: to ensure no injustice is caused to a deserving candidate and to protect administrative integrity by proceeding against those who submit false claims.

The ruling relied on the inherent duty of an employer to maintain accurate service records for "good administration".

The Tribunal noted the discrepancy between the applicant's claims and the respondents' records but observed that the qualifications had appeared in the PIMS portal and seniority list at some stage.

The court reasoned that since the applicant had already secured 126 marks in the examination, her career should not be stalled by a procedural dispute over record-keeping without a formal verification process.

It determined that the respondents possessed both the power and the obligation to verify the authenticity of the degrees with the issuing institutions.

The analysis bridged the gap between the "Rule of Law" (the duty to verify) and the "Facts" (the disputed B.Ed./M.A. degrees) by concluding that verification is the only objective way to resolve the eligibility conflict.

It held that if the qualifications are found to be genuine, the respondents must declare her results and grant her notional benefits based on her merit relative to other selected candidates within one month of verification.

The O.A. was disposed of with No order as to costs.