Strict adherence to certificate issuance timelines in recruitment advertisements is mandatory for public employment.

The All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) issued an advertisement in 2020 for the recruitment of Operation Theatre Assistants.

Clause 9 of the advertisement specifically mandated that OBC candidates must submit a valid Non-Creamy Layer (NCL) certificate issued between 01.04.2019 and 31.03.2020.

The Respondent, an OBC candidate, possessed two certificates—one issued before the stipulated period and one after—but none within the required window.

Although the Respondent was successful in the selection rounds, AIIMS withheld the appointment order due to the invalidity of the certificate relative to the advertisement's terms.

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) allowed the Respondent's Original Application (OA 1712/2022), characterizing the denial as "hyper-technical" and "against the spirit of justice," and directed AIIMS to accept the certificate subject to creamy layer verification.

AIIMS challenged this order before the Delhi High Court.

Whether a court or tribunal can rewrite the eligibility criteria or temporal requirements for documents stipulated in a recruitment advertisement.

Whether the "spirit of justice" allows for the exercise of judicial discretion to override the "word of law" in matters of public employment.

The Court applied the principle that the terms of a recruitment advertisement are binding on both the candidate and the recruiter, and the judiciary cannot rewrite these terms.

It relied on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Commissioner, Delhi Police v. Uttam Kumar (2026 SCC OnLine SC 523), which held that discretion, grace, or compassion must not interfere in public employment matters to maintain a fair level playing field.

The court applied the principle that a candidate who participates in a selection process with full knowledge of its requirements is precluded from raising a grievance regarding those requirements after the process is complete.

The High Court found the Tribunal’s reasoning jurisprudentially flawed, noting that while law aspires to justice, administration of justice cannot be "innocent of the law".

The Court observed that Clause 9 of the advertisement was explicit; ignoring it would render the stipulation redundant.

The Court critiqued the Tribunal’s narrow view of "justice," explaining that allowing the Respondent's appointment would be unjust to other potential candidates who may have refrained from applying because they lacked a certificate from the specific period.

It further clarified that eligibility to "hold a post" is contingent upon being eligible to "compete for the post" in the first instance.

Since the Respondent's certificate did not conform to the temporal requirements of the advertisement, it could not be deemed "valid" for the purposes of that specific recruitment exercise.

The Court noted that the Respondent had not challenged the validity of the temporal requirement in the advertisement itself.

The Court concluded that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by attempting to steer clear of the law in the name of justice.

Consequently, the OA filed by the Respondent before the Tribunal was dismissed, and the writ petition filed by AIIMS was allowed.