Mandatory Requirement to Upload Photographs Without Spectacles is Binding and Non-Discriminatory in Public Recruitment

The applicants, candidates for Selection Posts, submitted online applications to the Staff Selection Commission (SSC).

Their candidatures were rejected via orders dated 25.01.2021 and 03.02.2022 because they uploaded photographs wearing spectacles.

The applicants challenged these rejections, contending that the restriction on spectacles was not explicitly clear in the advertisement, that they wear glasses naturally, and that they had been allowed to participate in previous cycles without such issues.

The respondents maintained that the Notice of Examination (Clauses 17.3 and 19.1.3) specifically mandated that photographs must be without spectacles and that such terms are binding once the process begins.

1. Whether the rejection of candidature based on the submission of a photograph with spectacles is legally sustainable when such a condition is stipulated in the examination notice.

2. Whether the recruitment agency is bound to allow corrections or relaxations to mandatory photograph standards after the selection process has commenced.

Recruitment processes are strictly governed by the terms and conditions of the advertisement, which carry statutory flavor for the selection process.

Supreme Court judgment in Santanu Kumar & Ors. v. UOI & Ors. (WP (C) No. 234/2018), which accepted a high-level committee's recommendation mandating that candidates upload soft copies of photographs "without spectacles and cap" to prevent malpractices.

Doctrine of "approbation and reprobation," establishing that a candidate who participates in a process without protest is estopped from challenging its terms later.

The Tribunal reasoned that the requirement for photographs without spectacles was not an arbitrary whim of the respondents but a mandatory condition intended to ensure uniformity, standardization, and authenticity, as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 141.

The court noted that because these guidelines originated from a Supreme Court-mandated committee to curb examination malpractices, they are binding on all courts and authorities.

The Tribunal rejected the applicants' argument regarding the lack of a "correction window," noting that the absence of such a feature in this specific examination does not create a vested right for the applicants.

Since the applicants failed to demonstrate any "hostile discrimination" or procedural illegality, and because the issue was already settled by precedents in Manoj Kumar & Ors. v. UOI (OA 1025/2022) and Nitish Kumar v. UOI (OA 3509/2022), the Tribunal found no ground to deviate from the established standards.

The Original Application (O.A.) was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.