Failure to disclose essential experience in the application cannot be cured by subsequent production of an experience certificate.

The applicant applied for the post of Junior Warden (House Keeper) pursuant to Advertisement Notice No. 239/2023 dated 17 November 2023, which prescribed graduation and two years’ requisite experience as essential qualifications.

His candidature was rejected by AIIMS Jodhpur on the ground that the requisite experience had not been correctly mentioned in the online application form and that the experience particulars and supporting documents did not match.

The applicant relied on an experience certificate dated 20 November 2018 and contended that he possessed the required experience but had omitted or incorrectly entered it due to an inadvertent error while completing the online form.

His representation dated 27 July 2024 was rejected on 21 February 2025.

He initially approached the Allahabad High Court through Writ-A No. 1118 of 2025, which was disposed of on 4 November 2025 with liberty to approach the Tribunal.

Thereafter, he filed O.A. No. 235 of 2026 before the Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal under a mistaken understanding of territorial jurisdiction, before approaching the Principal Bench.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the O.A. and directed its regular registration.

Whether the applicant’s failure to correctly disclose the requisite experience in the prescribed online application form, despite allegedly possessing the experience, could be treated as a curable or inadvertent error.

Whether the subsequent production or reliance upon the experience certificate could cure the omission or incorrect disclosure after the prescribed cut-off date.

Whether the rejection of the applicant’s candidature was legally infirm and whether consequential directions for consideration or appointment could be issued at an advanced stage of the recruitment process.

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It applied the general principle that recruitment advertisements and application-form requirements must be complied with strictly and uniformly by all candidates.

Where an advertisement requires disclosure of essential educational or experiential qualifications in the online application form, such disclosure is mandatory and forms the basis of initial scrutiny; possession of the qualification alone does not cure failure to disclose it in the prescribed manner within the stipulated time.

The Tribunal further applied the principle that post-deadline supplementation or alteration of essential particulars cannot ordinarily be permitted, as it would compromise transparency, equal treatment, and the uniformity of the recruitment process.

Minor clerical errors may be treated differently, but omission of an essential qualification is not ordinarily a curable defect.

The Tribunal accepted that the applicant claimed to possess an experience certificate issued before the recruitment notice; however, it treated the decisive defect as his admitted failure to correctly mention the requisite experience in the online application form.

Since the advertisement required complete and correct submission of the application and made the candidate responsible for possessing and producing eligibility documents, the later experience certificate could not substitute for the mandatory disclosure made within the recruitment timeline.

The alleged inadvertence did not alter the legal consequence because permitting correction after the cut-off date would allow one candidate to supplement an essential eligibility particular and would undermine equal treatment of other candidates.

The Tribunal also considered that the recruitment process had substantially progressed and that interference could unsettle the selection process and affect other candidates’ rights.

Accordingly, it found no illegality or jurisdictional error in the rejection of the candidature or in the rejection of the applicant’s representation.

The challenge to the rejection orders and the consequential prayers for eligibility, reconsideration, and appointment were therefore rejected.

The O.A. was dismissed in limine; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of, and no order as to costs was made.

The accompanying delay-condonation application, M.A. No. 3817/2026, was allowed on the basis of the applicant’s bona fide pursuit of proceedings before the High Court and the Allahabad Bench.