Fact Check Policy

Material recruitment information should be checked against an available reliable source before publication. Fact checking focuses on claims that can affect a reader's eligibility, payment, deadline, examination or result.

Claims normally checked

• Recruiting organization and official post or examination name.
• Notification number, publication date and responsible website.
• Application start, closing, fee, correction and examination dates.
• Vacancy totals and category-wise distribution where published.
• Age limits, qualification, experience and relaxation rules.
• Application fee, payment method and refund or exemption conditions.
• Official notification, application, result, admit card answer key links.

Source hierarchy

The latest official notification or corrigendum normally receives the greatest weight. An official portal notice is preferred over an unattributed social post, forwarded message or copied article. Screenshots without a verifiable source should not be treated as conclusive evidence.

Conflicting or incomplete sources

If official pages conflict, the content should describe the uncertainty or wait for clarification. The date and context of each source matter. A later corrigendum may lawfully replace an earlier statement. Editors should not combine details from different recruitments merely because their names are similar.

Link verification

Important links should be opened and checked for the correct authority, secure domain and relevant destination. Link shorteners or unofficial mirrors should be avoided where a direct official URL is available. A link may later expire, so users should also know the responsible authority's main website.

Reader-submitted claims

Readers can submit an error report through the Contact Us page. A useful report includes the exact page URL, disputed sentence and official supporting source. A message is treated as a lead for review, not as proof by itself.

Outcome of a review

A claim may be confirmed, corrected, clarified, marked as pending or left unchanged when evidence is insufficient. The review should focus on verifiable facts rather than personal preference about wording or design.