NJ Civil Service Navigator

N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.1 Examination and selection disqualification

N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.1, Examination and selection disqualification. A person may be denied examination eligibility or appointment when he or she: 1. Lacks the job requirements; 2. Is ineligible, by law, for employment in the Full text with 3 recorded amendments, 269 citing decisions, cited by 3 other rul

Selection and Appointment · Examination and Selection Disqualification and Appeals

Current through New Jersey Register, Vol. 58 No. 14, July 20, 2026. Reviewed as of July 26, 2026.

This is an annotated mirror, not the official publication. Verify against the Civil Service Commission before relying on it.

In plain language

Nine grounds on which a person may be denied examination eligibility or appointment, and the ninth is a catch-all for other sufficient reasons. The specific eight: lacking the job requirements, being ineligible by law for employment in the title, being physically or psychologically unfit to perform the duties of the title effectively, having failed to pass examination procedures, having been removed from public service for disciplinary reasons after an opportunity for a hearing, having made a false statement of material fact or attempted deception or fraud in any part of the selection or appointment process, having a prior employment history that relates adversely to the title, and not paying the application processing fee on time. An injury incurred in the armed forces is not a disqualification unless the Chairperson or designee considers the condition incapacitating. Two grounds are not absolute. Prior disciplinary removal and adverse employment history may both be set aside for good cause, admitting the person to the examination and, with the concurrence of the appointing authority, certifying them for appointment. Any action under this section takes effect on receipt of the written notice of disqualification.

Written by the NJ Civil Service Navigator editorial team from the text of N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.1. It is a description of the rule, not the rule itself, and not legal advice.

(a) A person may be denied examination eligibility or appointment when he or she: #

1. Lacks the job requirements; #

2. Is ineligible, by law, for employment in the title; #

3. Is physically or psychologically unfit to perform effectively the duties of the title. However, an injury incurred in the armed forces shall not be considered a disqualification unless the Chairperson or designee considers the condition incapacitating; #

4. Has failed to pass examination procedures; #

5. Has been removed from the public service for disciplinary reasons after an opportunity for a hearing; #

6. Has made a false statement of any material fact or attempted any deception or fraud in any part of the selection or appointment process; #

7. Has a prior employment history which relates adversely to the title; #

8. Has failed to pay the required application processing fee in a timely manner, or for open competitive examination, has failed to provide documentation of exemption from the application processing fee in a timely manner; or #

9. Other sufficient reasons. #

(b) Except where precluded by law, a person who is disqualified pursuant to (a)5 and 7 above may, for good cause, be admitted to an examination and, with the appointing authority's concurrence, certified for appointment. #

(c) Any action specified in this section shall be effective upon receipt of written notice of disqualification. #

(d) See N.J.A.C. 4A:4-4.6A for disqualifications of certain persons returning from military service. #

You were disqualified from an examination or from appointment

Nine grounds allow a person to be denied examination eligibility or appointment: lacking the job requirements, being ineligible by law for the title, being physically or psychologically unfit to perform the duties effectively, failing to pass examination procedures, having been removed from the public service for disciplinary reasons after an opportunity for a hearing, making a false statement of material fact or attempting deception or fraud in any part of the selection or appointment process, having a prior employment history that relates adversely to the title, failing to pay the application processing fee or document an exemption in time, and other sufficient reasons. An injury incurred in the armed forces is not treated as a disqualification unless the Chairperson considers the condition incapacitating.

A criminal record is not on that list, which catches people out. The criminal record ground lives in the rule on removing names from an eligible list, where an eligible may be removed for a criminal record that adversely relates to the employment sought. Five factors are stated for deciding whether it does: the nature and seriousness of the crime, the circumstances in which it occurred, the date and the eligible's age at the time, whether it was an isolated event, and evidence of rehabilitation. Presenting a pardon or an expungement prohibits removal from the list, except for law enforcement, correction officer, correctional police officer, juvenile detention officer, firefighter and judiciary titles, and other titles the Chairperson may determine.

Two of the nine grounds have a good cause exit. Except where the law forbids it, a person disqualified for prior disciplinary removal or for a prior employment history relating adversely to the title may, for good cause, be admitted to an examination and, with the appointing authority's concurrence, certified for appointment. Both halves have to happen. Good cause reopens the examination; the appointing authority's agreement is a separate hurdle after it.

The disqualification can be used to reject an application, refuse to test you, refuse to place your name on a list, refuse to certify it, remove it from a list, remove you from employment, or take other appropriate action. That last one has a limit worth knowing: where the employee is permanent or serving a working test period, removal from employment goes through the major disciplinary procedures. The disqualification rule does not sidestep them.

The clock is not in this section, which is the practical trap. Disqualification takes effect on receipt of written notice, and the appeal belongs to the category of examination related matters. The 20-day filing period, and the requirement to file with the Commission representative identified on the notice advising of disqualification, are both set out separately. Medical and psychological disqualifications go somewhere else again, to their own appeal rule, and that is the one place in this area where the appointing authority carries the burden of proof rather than you: 20 days to appeal, then 90 days from filing to submit a report from a professional of your own choosing.

Filing does not pause anything. Unless the Commission or the Chairperson orders otherwise, an appeal does not affect the promulgation of a list, a certification or an appointment, so the vacancy can be filled while you are still arguing. And the ninth ground, other sufficient reasons, is left undefined in the rule.

Written by the NJ Civil Service Navigator editorial team. Every statement here traces to the rules cited on this page. It is not legal advice, and a collective agreement may change how these rules apply to you.

Amendment history

Rule numbers, effective dates and New Jersey Register citations as published. 3 recorded changes.

  1. AmendedR.2017 d.142
    49 N.J.R. 492(a); 49 N.J.R. 2239(a)
  2. AmendedR.2014 d.061
    45 N.J.R. 520(a); 46 N.J.R. 619(a)
  3. AmendedR.1993 d.270
    25 N.J.R. 1085(b); 25 N.J.R. 2509(a)

How this rule has been applied

269 decisions have cited N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.1. The list below is citations to those decisions, not the decisions. The summary above is ours, written from the opinion after reading it. Nothing here is legal advice.

Decisions we have read

Matter of Vey124 N.J. 534, July 11, 1991

A candidate for police officer was taken off the eligible list after a psychological evaluation graded her below average and described her as bold and suspicious. The Supreme Court sent the case back because nothing in the record tied those traits to how she would actually do the job. The test the agency applies is unfitness to serve, not failure to be the strongest applicant on the list, and where a trait is treated as disqualifying there has to be evidence that it genuinely predicts performance. Anyone knocked off a list on psychological grounds is owed findings that make that connection rather than a list of adjectives.

Read the opinion (free, via CourtListener). Summary written from the decision, checked July 26, 2026.

New Jersey Supreme Court (1)
  • Matter of Vey124 N.J. 534; 591 A.2d 13331991
Superior Court (2)
  • Tharpe v. City of Newark Police Dept.261 N.J.Super. 401; 619 A.2d 228
  • Merit System Board. Matter of Wiggins242 N.J.Super. 342; 576 A.2d 932
Civil Service Commission final determinations (261)
Office of Administrative Law initial decisions (2)
  • In re EarpDocket CSV 13383-12
  • In re ShethDocket CSV 5771-07
Other decisions (3)
  • Removal, by the Department of Corrections (DOC), of a candidate's name from the Correction Officer Recruit (S9987M), DOC eligible list on the basis that she had falsified her employment application was authorized by N.J.A.C. 4A:4-4.7(a)1 and N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.1(a)6, which together allowed a candidate's name to be removed from an employment list for making a false statement of any material fact or attempting any deception of fraud in any part of the selection or appointment process because the candidate failed to include, in the list of criminal charges that had been filed against her, a charge that she had received stolen property, and then claimed both to have forgotten about the offense and to not have known that it was ever filed. Because the candidate withheld material information, thereby failing to present and complete and accurate picture of her background, the DOC had a sufficient basis for its decision to remove her name from the eligible list and her appeal was properly denied. In re Anrea Darby, Correction Officer Recruit (S9987M), Department of Corrections, CSC Dkt. No. 2013-948, Final Decision (February 21cites (a)6
  • Town and its chief of police were entitled to summary judgment in a public employee's discrimination action under the Americans with Disabilities Act2011cites (a)3
  • Nothing in the hiring procedures set forth in N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.1 gave candidates a protected property or liberty interest in being hired as police officers by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Griswold v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.2009

Commission decisions citing 4A:4-6.1

303 decisions of the Civil Service Commission since January 16, 2019 cite this section (denied 213, granted 79, granted in part 7, as the minutes record the outcome). The newest:

All 303 decisions

This rule points to

Rules that point here