The recruitment advertisement stipulated that 25% of the positions were reserved for women who had served as Anganwadi Workers for a minimum of ten years, alongside standard qualifications such as a matriculation certificate. The age limit for applicants was set at 27 years, with various relaxations applicable based on specific criteria.

The respondent participated in the selection process and successfully cleared various stages. However, her candidature was rejected on the grounds of being over-age, prompting her to appeal to the Central Administrative Tribunal.

The Tribunal examined the evidence presented, including two work experience certificates submitted by the respondent. One certificate confirmed her service as an Anganwadi Worker from May 14, 1997, to July 18, 2007, while the second noted her work with the New Indian Educational and Cultural Society during overlapping periods.

Despite the petitioners' claims that the overlapping certificates suggested one was fabricated, the Tribunal found that the respondent had indeed worked at both locations concurrently, as the nature of Anganwadi work allowed for such flexibility. The Tribunal emphasized that the certificates had not been duly verified by the recruiting body, leading to an arbitrary rejection of her application without due diligence.

The court reviewed the Tribunal's order, concluding that the reasoning was sound and did not warrant interference. It acknowledged the financial challenges faced by Anganwadi Workers, often leading them to seek additional employment opportunities to support their families.

Furthermore, the court dismissed arguments that the respondent's Anganwadi experience certificate was submitted too late, stating that the certificate had been provided in accordance with the application requirements.

Conclusion

In light of these considerations, the court upheld the Tribunal's directive to the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) to verify the respondent's experience certificate and extend an offer of appointment if the verification proved favorable. This decision reinforces the importance of thorough verification processes in recruitment and highlights the need for sensitivity towards the circumstances faced by Anganwadi Workers.

The ruling serves as a reminder that procedural fairness must be balanced with the realities of candidates’ experiences, ensuring that opportunities are accessible to deserving applicants.