Violation of recruitment notification instructions regarding entry of marks justifies summary rejection of candidature.

The applicant applied online for the post of Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) on 16.07.2024, following an advertisement dated 12.07.2024.

Based on her self-reported data, she was shortlisted for the post of Branch Post Master at Khaira BO.

During the document verification process on 27.08.2024, Respondent No. 3 rejected her candidature because the uploaded community and Secondary School Examination (SSC) certificates did not tally with the original documents.

The respondents contended that the applicant entered a CGPA of "10" (representing 95%) in her application, whereas her actual marksheet showed 403 marks (80.6%).

Additionally, she substituted a main subject ("Hindi Course-A") with an additional subject ("Odia") to inflate her merit and uploaded an SEBC certificate despite claiming OBC status.

1. Whether the rejection of the applicant’s candidature was justified due to the entry of grades instead of marks in violation of the recruitment notification.

2. Whether the discrepancies in subject entries and community certificates constituted valid grounds for disqualification.

The Tribunal applied Clause 8 of the Department of Posts Notification No. 17-03/2024-GDS dated 12.07.2024.

Clause 8(ii) stipulates that merit lists are prepared based on marks obtained or conversion of grades to marks.

Specifically, Clause 8(iii) mandates that if a marksheet contains both marks and grades/points, the applicant must use "marks obtained."

It explicitly warns that applications using grades/points instead of marks are liable for cancellation.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s CBSE marksheet displayed both marks obtained and positional grades.

Under Clause 8(iii) of the notification, the applicant was required to enter numerical marks, yet she chose to enter grades, which the Tribunal characterized as a "mistake on part of the applicant".

The court noted the respondents' argument that the applicant intentionally entered a CGPA of "10" and omitted a main subject to "sail through the selection process" by appearing more meritorious than she actually was.

Furthermore, the Tribunal observed a discrepancy in the community certificate, as the applicant uploaded an SEBC certificate while declaring herself an OBC candidate.

The court reasoned that since the selection is system-generated based on candidate input, providing wrong information that affects merit is a fatal flaw in the application.

The court found the rejection consistent with the mandatory terms of the recruitment notification.

Consequently, the Original Application was dismissed as being devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.