Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has framed a ‘Root of Eligibility Test’ to determine when candidates can be disqualified from recruitment processes over errors in online application forms or uploaded documents.
The court held that candidates who possessed the prescribed eligibility on the cut-off date cannot be rejected merely because documents uploaded as proof were missing or incorrect. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar passed the order on 5 November while deciding 145 connected petitions concerning recruitments conducted by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (HSSC) and Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC).
The lead petitioner, Pradeep, scored 72.2 marks in HSSC’s Primary Teacher (Mewat cadre) recruitment, against a cut-off of 70.30 for the Backward Class-B (BC-B) category. The last date to apply was 21 August 2024. On that day, Pradeep obtained a fresh BC-B certificate and entered its reference number and date in the application form. However, the cyber cafe in Hansi through which he applied uploaded his older certificate, dated 18 March 2024. HSSC scrutinised only the uploaded documents, disqualified him and did not inform him of the defect. He learnt of his exclusion only when the final result was declared on 24 July 2026.
Most of the 145 petitions arose from similar errors. Some candidates uploaded documents in the wrong fields, omitted certificates or submitted incomplete documents. Others selected the ‘BC (Creamy Layer)’ option despite holding non-creamy layer certificates. Some had applied for certificates before the closing date but received them afterwards.
To address these disputes, Justice Brar formulated a four-stage test: determine whether the candidate possessed the prescribed eligibility on the relevant cut-off date; examine whether any legal bar prevented the candidate from claiming the benefit; determine whether the candidate was given an effective opportunity to correct the defect; and decide the appropriate course of action.
The court also held that a certificate applied for through Haryana’s Antyodaya SARAL Portal before the cut-off date but issued afterwards could be treated as held on that date. A reserved-category candidate whose claim fails must be considered in the General category on merit, unless the recruitment advertisement expressly bars such consideration.
Also Read: J&K govt job aspirants running out of time—pending exams, results in limbo, lower age caps
Difference in eligibility and proof
Citing Supreme Court judgments, Justice Brar distinguished between eligibility and proof of eligibility. The former must exist on the cut-off date and cannot be relaxed. Proof, however, is procedural, said the court. A defect in documentation does not by itself invalidate the candidature of someone who was otherwise eligible.
The commissions relied on their recruitment advertisements. Clause 13 of HSSC’s advertisement states that applications containing incorrect particulars are deemed cancelled and will not be considered even under the unreserved category.
The court held that the clause applies where a candidate did not possess the eligibility claimed. However, where the candidate was eligible but submitted defective documentation, the particulars could not automatically be treated as incorrect.
4-stage ‘Root of Eligibility Test’
The first stage of the test is possession. The court said it depends on the kind of eligibility. A degree, diploma or HTET certificate is acquired on the date the result is declared, irrespective of when the marksheet is issued. A settled status, such as caste, is established if it existed on the cut-off date. A time-bound status, such as non-creamy layer or EWS, must be supported by a valid certificate for the relevant period, issued on or before the cut-off date.
Possession must be established through official records, such as the result declaration date, the date on the certificate or the SARAL portal record. Information entered by the candidate in the application form can corroborate this but is not decisive.
Within this stage, the court also laid down two rules. Under the Pending Application Rule, a candidate who submitted a complete application for a certificate through the state’s prescribed channel before the cut-off date will be treated as holding it from that date if the certificate was subsequently issued on the basis of that application. The rule also applies to experience and disability certificates. A mere affidavit or general claim of a portal glitch is insufficient.
Under the State Recognition Rule, if the government has consciously recognised a class of certificates as valid, all similarly placed candidates must be treated alike.
The second stage examines whether any legal bar applies. A candidate who did not claim a particular benefit in the application form cannot seek it later. Nor can a candidate who misrepresented facts.
The third stage concerns forfeiture of candidature. The court held that an opportunity to correct an error is effective only if it was publicised, given before the claim was acted upon and capable of bringing the specific defect to the candidate’s notice.
An application-form printout records the particulars entered by a candidate. It can therefore help identify an incorrect category selection, but not an incorrect or missing attachment. An agency that has the power to seek additional documents but scrutinises only the uploaded ones without notifying the candidate cannot claim to have provided an effective opportunity to correct the defect.
Candidates, too, must act promptly after discovering an error.
At the final stage, curable defects must be addressed after verification with the issuing authority or official records. If a reserved-category claim fails, only that claim falls. The candidate must still be considered in the General category on merit.
The court did not grant relief to every petitioner. Usha, who applied for a fresh EWS certificate only after receiving a notice of provisional rejection, lost her EWS claim because neither a valid certificate nor an application for one existed on the cut-off date.
Arun Kumar, who applied under the General category in 2015 and never claimed the benefit available to dependants of ex-servicemen, was also denied relief. He had approached the court three years after the closing date.
Why the commissions’ arguments did not hold
HSSC argued that a recruitment advertisement was the ‘magna carta’ (governing document) of a selection process and that a cyber cafe operator acted as the candidate’s agent. HPSC maintained that it scrutinised eligibility only after candidates qualified for interviews and, as a constitutional body, was bound by the terms of its advertisement.
The court disagreed. It examined the Division Bench ruling in Pardeep Kumar, decided on 3 November 2025, on which the commissions had primarily relied. It held that none of the petitioners in that case possessed a certificate valid for the relevant period on the cut-off date. The Division Bench had therefore not considered the situation of a candidate who held the correct certificate but uploaded a different one.
The High Court directed the commissions to give each petitioner an opportunity to produce documents that existed on or before the cut-off date and pass a reasoned order within eight weeks of receiving the certified copy of the judgment.
Candidates found eligible and meritorious must be offered appointments within a further three weeks. The appointments will be made against existing vacancies, including posts kept on hold because of the petitions, and supernumerary posts if necessary.
Such candidates will receive notional seniority from the date candidates with lower marks were appointed, but actual pay only from the date they join. Those already appointed will not be removed.
(Edited by Chingkheinganbi Mayengbam)
Also Read: Can’t deny public recruitment video under RTI. How HC ruled on plea by Haryana Police aspirant