Recruitment authorities may reject candidature for unsubstantiated bonus claims and experience certificates from ineligible institutions.

The petitioner applied for the post of Training Officer (Sewing Technology) pursuant to a recruitment advertisement.

After the written examination and document verification, her candidature was rejected because she did not possess a Craft Instructor Training Certificate (CITC) and her experience certificate was not issued by an institution accepted under the recruitment requirements.

Following an earlier direction to consider her representation, the Director rejected it by order dated 30 October 2023.

The petitioner challenged that decision under Article 226, contending that she remained eligible on her written-examination marks even without the 10 CITC bonus marks, and that her teaching experience should be accepted.

Whether the respondents were justified in denying the petitioner 10 bonus marks after she claimed to hold a CITC but failed to produce the certificate.

Whether the petitioner’s experience certificate, issued by the Apparel Training & Design Center, met the recruitment requirements and should have been accepted.

Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature warranted interference under Article 226.

The Court applied Clause 20 of the recruitment instructions published on the Vyapam website, which provided that experience certificates issued by VTPs or institutions other than Government and private ITIs, Engineering Colleges, or Polytechnic Colleges would not be treated as valid.

It also applied the recruitment requirement that a candidate could receive CITC bonus marks only upon possessing and producing the relevant certificate.

The petitioner admitted that she had marked “Yes” for CITC despite not holding the certificate; the authorities were therefore justified in denying her the corresponding 10 bonus marks.

The Court separately examined her experience certificate and found that it had been issued by the Apparel Training & Design Center, a private entity, and did not establish that it was an institution qualifying under Clause 20.

The certificate consequently did not satisfy the recruitment instructions.

On those grounds, the Court found no arbitrariness or illegality in the rejection of her candidature.

It declined to interfere with the order dated 30 October 2023 and dismissed the petition, with no order as to costs.

Pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.