Failure to disclose mandatory experience details in recruitment applications is a non-curable defect justifying rejection of candidature.

The applicant applied for the posts of Youth Assistant Grade-I and II under Phase-X/2022 Selection Posts. Her candidature was rejected via a list dated 13.11.2024 because she failed to provide detailed work experience in Column No. 26 of the online application form

The applicant contended that the column was not marked as mandatory with an asterisk (*) and that she had marked "YES" regarding possessing qualifications

The respondents argued that Para 9.5 and Annexure-V of the recruitment notice explicitly mandated filling the experience column and that failure to do so warranted rejection

The applicant approached the Tribunal seeking to quash the rejection

1. Whether the requirement to fill all prescribed fields in the online application form, specifically work experience details in Column No. 26, is mandatory or directory in nature

2. Whether the omission to furnish work experience details constitutes a "curable defect" or a substantial defect justifying the cancellation of candidature

the recruitment instructions stipulated in Para 9.5 of the Notice, which mandates that applicants "must fill the relevant column of the online Application Form" regarding experience, failing which "candidature shall be rejected"

the doctrine of substantiality established in Rattan Anmol Singh v. Atma Ram, holding that attestation/signatures are not mere technicalities and must be in strict accordance with the Act

Relying on Brijendra Lal Gupta v. Jwala Prasad, the court applied the principle that the "lack or absence of something essential to completeness" (such as age or experience) in a prescribed form constitutes a defect of substantial character that cannot be subsequently validated at the scrutiny stage

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant, being literate, was bound by the explicit terms of the advertisement, which operates as a binding contract between the agency and the candidate

It noted that Clause 9.5 and Clause 20.1.1 (allowing cancellation for incomplete applications) left no ambiguity regarding the mandatory nature of the experience column

The court observed that the provision of a "Correction Window" (Clause 12) was the intended remedy for inadvertent mistakes; since the applicant failed to use it, she could not claim the omission was trivial

The Tribunal held that work experience is an essential eligibility condition under the Recruitment Rules (RRs); therefore, omitting these details prevents the Commission from verifying the integrity of the application at the initial stage and goes to the root of the candidate's suitability

The Tribunal held that the Staff Selection Commission was justified in rejecting the candidature for non-compliance with the recruitment notice instructions. Consequently, the Original Application (OA) was dismissed, and no relief was granted to the applicant