Scrutiny of three doubtful applications after a portal outage

X is admissible. The advertised closing date of 14 March was suspended for all candidates by the IT wing's circular of 15 March, which set a new deadline of 16 March 17:00. The circular was issued by the competent authority within the Commission, was general in terms rather than aimed at any named candidate, and was issued because of a fault attributable to the Commission, not to applicants. X's submission at 16:40 is within that window and the portal timestamp is independently verifiable.

The principle is that the Commission cannot profit from its own failure to receive applications, provided the relaxation is applied uniformly and recorded. Two safeguards make the decision defensible: publish the extended date and the reason on the website so no candidate is treated secretly, and minute the circular number in X's file. What I would not do is accept X by sympathy while rejecting a similarly late submission from someone who could not reach the portal at all - that would turn a uniform relaxation into discretionary favour. The record must show the same rule applied to every late file.

Admit, but on the certificate rather than on the degree. The advertisement said four-year degree 'or equivalent', which deliberately leaves room for an equivalence route, and the Higher Education Commission is the statutory body for that determination. Y's certificate was issued in 2022, is unconditional on its face and predates the advertisement, so it is not a post-hoc attempt to cure a deficiency.

Before admitting, verify two things: the certificate number against the HEC verification portal, and that it names the same degree and institution as the transcript. If verification fails or the certificate is time-limited or conditional, reject with reasons and allow a cure period to produce a verified copy. I would also check whether the equivalence says 'equivalent to a four-year degree in Pakistan' generally or only for a named purpose such as higher study; the former satisfies the advertisement, the latter does not. The reasoning matters because the same argument will be raised by dozens of candidates, so the committee should minute the rule once rather than decide file by file.

Treat them as two separate tests. On quota: the advertisement and the Commission's rules allocate posts by domicile, not by residence. Z's domicile certificate is Rural Sindh, so his claim against the Urban Sindh quota fails on the document, and eleven years of living in Karachi does not convert domicile. He is considered against the Rural Sindh quota if he is otherwise eligible, and his file should record that the Urban claim was refused with the rule cited.

On experience: if the post required experience, an experience letter is evidence, not proof, and the burden is on the candidate to show the firm existed and the role was real. A firm not registered with SECP is possible for a partnership or sole proprietorship, so rejection purely on registration is unsafe; instead require a registration or tax certificate, the partner's authority to sign, and a pay or bank record for the stated period, with a short cure period. If those are not produced, reject on the merits and say so in one paragraph. Never reject a candidate for a reason you have not put to him.