Summary
FCI could not reject a meritorious applicant solely because proof of her existing translation experience was produced later, where the advertisement did not require the certificate with the application. The later employer certificates were not doubted, and FCI had neither identified the deficiency nor sought further proof during verification despite reserving power to do so. The Supreme Court distinguished possession of an essential qualification from its proof and upheld consideration for appointment subject to all other conditions.
Issues
- Whether delayed proof of existing experience justified rejection under this advertisement.
- Whether the employer certificates and verification process supported reconsideration.
- What appointment-related relief was due.
Held
- The undisputed employer certificates established the required year of English-Hindi translation experience. The Single Judge wrongly considered only the earlier relieving letter and overlooked those certificates. (¶ 7.1–8)
- The advertisement required possession of the experience but did not specifically require its certificate to accompany the application. Non-production at that stage was not fatal to an otherwise eligible and meritorious candidate. (¶ 9)
- FCI had not informed the candidate at verification that the document was inadequate or that a separate certificate was missing. It could have used its reserved power to seek additional evidence, which the candidate subsequently produced without its authenticity being challenged. (¶ 10–10.1)
- Possessing the qualification by the relevant date is distinct from the mode or timing of proving it. On these facts the latter could not defeat the former; consideration for appointment remained subject to satisfaction of all other conditions. (¶ 11–12)
Result
FCI appeal dismissed without costs. High Court direction to consider the candidate for appointment on merits, if all other conditions were satisfied, upheld; no unconditional appointment ordered.