#Public Recruitment

The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that revising interview marks to reflect accurately verified academic credentials-previously submitted in error-does not amount to altering selection rules mid-process or violating natural justice. This sets a critical precedent for public recruitment bodies: transparency in document verification overrides procedural rigidity, ensuring merit-based outcomes without undermining fairness.

Punjab & Haryana High Court rules that candidates meeting graduation requirements by the application cut-off date-even with only semester-wise mark-sheets-cannot be disqualified for lacking a consolidated mark-sheet. The judgment reinforces that eligibility hinges on substantive qualification, not procedural formalities, protecting applicants from technical rejections in government recruitments.

Bombay High Court rules that candidates cannot be penalized for exceeding the age limit in public recruitment due to the state's administrative delay. The court directed Maharashtra to accept applications for Additional Public Prosecutor posts, emphasizing equitable relief under natural justice principles. This sets a precedent for similar cases involving government recruitment delays.

Patna High Court rules that reserved category candidates who qualify on merit must be granted their preferred postings, even if allocated against general category vacancies. The judgment reinforces that constitutional principles under Articles 14 and 16 require adherence to merit-cum-preference, ensuring equitable treatment in public recruitment.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that cancelling a Talathi selection based solely on visual comparison of photographs and signatures-without expert analysis or corroborative testimony-violates natural justice and is legally unsustainable. This sets a critical precedent for all public recruitment processes, requiring substantive evidence over subjective assessment in disciplinary and selection disputes.

Uttarakhand High Court ruled that unsuccessful candidates in public recruitment exams have an enforceable right under the RTI Act to inspect their evaluated answer sheets immediately after results are declared, rejecting rules that deferred access until the entire selection process concluded. The judgment reinforces transparency and prevents irreparable prejudice to candidates.