Last Updated: October 2026
1. Why This Policy Exists
Government job candidates make life-altering decisions based on the information they read online. A single fabricated recruitment notification, a wrong exam date, a misattributed vacancy, or a fake result link can cost a candidate an application window, a year of preparation, or money paid to a fraudster. fastrojgar.in therefore treats fact-checking as the foundation of every article we publish, not as a final editorial step. This policy sets out how we verify claims, what standards we apply, and how we correct mistakes when they occur. It works alongside our Editorial Policy, which explains our broader publishing principles.
2. What We Verify
We distinguish between factual claims that must be verified and general guidance that reflects our editorial judgement. Factual claims include: the existence of a recruitment notification; the name of the conducting authority; vacancy counts; post names; eligibility criteria such as age limits, educational qualifications, and category relaxations; pay scales; exam dates, admit card release dates, and result declaration dates; application fees and deadlines; official application and download URLs; and merit list contents. General guidance — for example, advice on how to prepare for an examination — is labelled as guidance rather than fact.
3. How We Verify Recruitment Notifications
Our coverage includes central and state government recruitment such as SSC GD Constable Recruitment, Delhi Police Constable recruitment, UPSSSC Female Health Worker recruitment, and CGPSC Chhattisgarh Police SI recruitment.
For every notification, our first check is always the originating source. An article is not published until a writer has located the official notification PDF, the commission’s recruitment page, or the departmental circular that announces the vacancy. Vacancy counts, post names, eligibility criteria, and fee details are taken directly from that source, not from secondary summaries or aggregator reposts.
Where a notification is circulating on social media or WhatsApp forwards but cannot be traced to an official source, we treat it as unverified and either do not publish it or publish it with an explicit warning that it has not been confirmed.
4. How We Verify Results, Merit Lists, and Answer Keys
Result and answer key articles are among the most time-sensitive content we publish, and errors spread fastest during result season. Our coverage includes India Post GDS results and UP Police Constable answer keys.
For result and answer key articles, we confirm: that the result has actually been declared by the official authority; that the download link resolves to the official portal; that the merit list we describe matches the official list; and that any “direct download link” we provide does in fact lead to the correct file. We do not publish result articles based on anticipated or rumoured declaration dates. Where a result is expected but not yet declared, we say so clearly rather than presenting a speculative date as confirmed.
5. Naming the Conducting Authority
A common and serious error in government job reporting is attributing a recruitment to the wrong commission or department. Our verification standard requires that the conducting authority be confirmed against the official notification for every article. We do not carry over an authority name from a template, a previous article, or a secondary source without confirming it against the primary notification.
We state this standard explicitly because misattribution causes real harm: a candidate who reads that a vacancy is conducted by one commission may prepare for the wrong examination, apply through the wrong portal, or dismiss a genuine opportunity as fake.
6. How We Verify Eligibility and Fee Details
Eligibility criteria and application fees are the details candidates most often rely on when deciding whether to apply, so they receive particular scrutiny. Age limits, educational qualifications, category relaxations, physical standards, and fee amounts are taken directly from the official notification and are dated so readers know when the information was confirmed. Where a criterion is ambiguous in the notification, we say so rather than resolving the ambiguity ourselves. We do not soften eligibility requirements to widen the applicant pool.
7. Language Quality and Internal Consistency
Fact-checking does not end with confirming the underlying facts. We also check that the article states those facts consistently and cleanly. Every article is reviewed before publication for duplicated words, incomplete sentences, copy-paste remnants from templates, and internal contradictions between the headline, the body text, and the summary. An article that names the correct facts but presents them in garbled or contradictory language still misleads the reader, and we treat such errors as factual failures to be corrected.
8. Sourcing Standards
We prefer primary sources: official notification PDFs, commission recruitment portals, departmental notices, and government result pages. Secondary sources — news reports, coaching institute blogs, aggregator sites, and social media — are used to identify leads but are not treated as confirmation on their own. When a claim cannot be verified through a primary source, we say so in the article. We do not present unverified information as established fact, and we do not remove caveats to make an opportunity sound more certain than it is.
9. Non-Partisanship and Consistency
We apply the same verification standard to every claim we check, regardless of which commission, department, state, or examination it concerns. We do not concentrate our fact-checking on any one recruiting body, and we do not favour notifications from larger or better-known commissions over smaller ones. Our judgements are based on the evidence available, not on commercial relationships or external pressure.
10. Separation of Fact-Checking from Commercial Interest
Fact-checking must be independent of advertising and partnership relationships. No advertiser, coaching institute, recruitment agency, or government body can pay to have a claim verified, to have a caveat removed, or to have an unverified vacancy presented as confirmed. Where content is sponsored, it is labelled as sponsored, and the fact-checking standards described in this policy still apply.
11. Corrections and Updates
Errors happen, and in government job reporting they can be costly. When a reader or our own review identifies a factual error — a wrong exam date, an incorrect vacancy count, a misattributed conducting authority, a broken result link, a misstated eligibility criterion, or garbled language that changes the meaning — we correct it promptly. Where the correction materially changes the guidance a reader would take from the article, we add a visible note explaining what was changed. We do not silently delete errors. Readers can report suspected errors through our Contact Us page. Corrections are logged internally so that recurring problems in sourcing, proofreading, or verification can be addressed.
12. Transparency About Limits
We are a job information platform, not a recruitment agency or a government department. We verify what we can against official sources, but we cannot guarantee that a commission will not revise its notification, postpone an examination, or reissue a result. Where our information is time-sensitive — as with rolling recruitment, revised exam schedules, or result declarations — we date the article and advise readers to confirm details on the official portal before acting.
13. Reader Responsibility
We encourage readers to treat any offer that demands upfront payment, promises a government job or a leaked paper, requests sensitive documents before an official selection process, or cannot be traced to an official commission domain with suspicion. Our fact-checking reduces risk; it does not eliminate it. The final verification step — checking the official portal before paying or sharing personal information — belongs to the reader. We also urge readers to report suspected fraud through our Contact Us page so that we can warn others.
14. Contact
Questions about this policy, corrections, or fact-checking suggestions can be sent through our Contact Us page. We also invite you to read our Editorial Policy, Privacy Policy, Cookies Policy, GDPR Policy, and Disclaimer for a full picture of how the site operates.
Every fact checked is a candidate’s opportunity protected.
