Recruitment Advertisement Terms Are Sacrosanct; Failure To Provide Mandated Salary Proof Valid Grounds For Rejecting Candidature: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"The recruiting authority is the best judge of its own requirements and where the advertisement clearly prescribes the documents or format necessary to establish eligibility, non-compliance can validly result in rejection of candidature." Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling, held that the terms and conditions of a recruitment advertisement are sacrosanct and must be strictly followed by candidates.

A bench of Justice Harpreet Singh Brar observed that a candidate who participates in a selection process without questioning an express requirement cannot later contend that such a requirement was merely procedural or capable of relaxation.

The petitioner, Sunita Devi, applied for Group-B posts, including Assistant Director (Technical) and Principal, under Advertisement No. 15/2024 issued by the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC). Her candidature was rejected during document verification because she failed to provide specific salary proofs, such as bank statements, EPF/ESI records, or Form 26AS, to authenticate her teaching experience from 2011 to 2014. While she claimed to have received her salary in cash, the Commission insisted on the documents mandated in the advertisement's proforma.

The primary question before the court was whether the recruiting authority could validly reject a candidate for failing to provide specific modes of salary proof mandated in the advertisement to verify experience. The court was also called upon to determine if the requirement for banking and statutory records was a mere procedural formality or a root deficiency in establishing eligibility.

Terms Of Recruitment Advertisements Must Be Scrupulously Followed

The court began by emphasizing that the issue at hand is no longer res integra, citing recent Supreme Court jurisprudence. Justice Brar noted that once an advertisement is issued for public employment, it becomes the duty of the aspirant to understand and comply with its requirements.

The court observed that if an aspirant finds any term ambiguous, they must seek clarity before participating. However, taking a "calculated chance" based on one's own understanding and later challenging the rejection is not permissible.

Court Relies On Supreme Court Precedent In Mohit Kumar Case

The bench placed heavy reliance on the Supreme Court's ruling in Mohit Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025), which held that the recruiting authority is the best judge of its requirements. The High Court reiterated that courts should be loath to entertain pleas of ambiguity and should instead lean in favor of the recruiting authority’s understanding of the advertisement's terms.

"It is the responsibility, nay duty, of an aspirant to read and note the terms and understand what its requirements are," the court noted while quoting Justice Dipankar Datta's observations in the aforementioned Supreme Court judgment.

Candidates Cannot Question Methodology After Being Declared Unsuccessful

Citing Rekha Sharma v. The Rajasthan High Court (2024), the court held that candidates who consciously participate in a selection process cannot be permitted to question the advertisement or the selection methodology after they are declared unsuccessful.

The bench observed that the petitioner, knowing fully well that she was not in possession of the specific documents required to authenticate her experience, could not be permitted to seek relaxation of the prescribed eligibility criteria at a later stage.

Specific Salary Proof Mandated To Prove Genuineness Of Experience

The court scrutinized Annexure-I of the advertisement, which prescribed the proforma for the experience certificate. The note in the proforma explicitly required candidates from private organizations to enclose bank statements, EPF/ESI contributions, Form 26AS, or NPS statements to prove the genuineness of their experience.

"Admittedly, the petitioner has not provided copies of the bank statements, statements of EPF contribution, statements of ESI contribution, Form 26AS... or the NPS contribution statements," the bench remarked, holding that the Commission correctly assessed the candidature within the framework of the advertisement.

Distinction Between Procedural Lapses And Root Deficiencies

The petitioner had relied on the Division Bench ruling in HSSC v. Dusyant Sharma, arguing that a failure to upload a certificate is a curable procedural defect. However, Justice Brar distinguished the cases, noting that in the present matter, the petitioner did not just fail to upload a document; she failed to possess the contemporaneous documentary proof required to authenticate her claim.

Court Finds Petitioner’s Stand On Cash Payment Self-Contradictory

Addressing the petitioner's argument regarding the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, the court found her stance self-contradictory. While she sought to justify cash payments through the statute, she failed to produce any other contemporaneous documentary proof required under the advertisement.

The court held that the deficiency in this case "goes to the root and is not a curable procedural lapse." It concluded that the petitioner could not substantiate the genuineness of the experience claimed through the mandated channels.

Finding no merit in the arguments, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. The court reaffirmed that the recruitment process must maintain the integrity of the terms set out in the initial advertisement to ensure fairness and uniformity for all candidates.

Date of Decision: 06 July 2026