N.J.A.C. 4A:5-2.1 Open competitive examinations
N.J.A.C. 4A:5-2.1, Open competitive examinations. A list of eligibles who have passed an open competitive examination shall appear in the following order: 1. Eligibles entitled to disabled veterans preferen Full text with 1 recorded amendment, 6 citing decisions, cited by 1 other rule.
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
Rank on an open competitive list is not score order. Every disabled veteran comes first, ordered by score among themselves; then every veteran, ordered by score; then everyone else. A non-veteran who scored 90 ranks below a disabled veteran who scored 80, and the worked example printed in the rule makes exactly that point. Where two eligibles have the same score and the same veterans status the tie is not broken and both hold the same rank. When a regular appointment is made and a disabled veteran or veteran has been certified, the appointing authority appoints disabled veterans first and then veterans, in ranking order. Only once those are exhausted does the rule of three under N.J.S.A. 11A:4-8 govern the choice among the remaining eligibles. One carve-out: preference is not required when the appointment being made is a provisional one from an incomplete list.
Written by the NJ Civil Service Navigator editorial team from the text of N.J.A.C. 4A:5-2.1. It is a description of the rule, not the rule itself, and not legal advice.
How veterans preference actually changes your ranking
The Commission does not decide whether you are a veteran. The Adjutant General of the Department of Military and Veterans' Affairs is empowered by statute to make veterans preference eligibility determinations, and the long list of qualifying service periods in the rules is there for information only. Preference then applies prospectively from the date of that determination, and it reaches a given list only if the determination came no later than eight days before the list's issuance date. Two people with identical service records can end up ranked differently on the same list purely because one filed earlier.
On an open competitive list the preference is absolute, and it beats score outright. Eligibles are ordered disabled veterans by score, then veterans by score, then non-veterans by score. A non-veteran who scored 90 sits below a disabled veteran who scored 80. When a disabled veteran or veteran is certified and a regular appointment is to be made, disabled veterans and then veterans must be appointed in order of ranking, so the appointing authority's choice among three does not begin until the veterans on that certification are used up. Where score and status both match, the tie is not broken and the eligibles share a rank.
Promotional lists work on a different principle, and calling it a tie-break undersells it. No distinction is drawn between disabled veterans and veterans. The list runs in score order regardless of status, and veterans are listed first only within a tied rank. But when a single vacancy is filled from a certification headed by a veteran, a non-veteran may not be appointed unless the appointing authority shows cause why the veteran should be removed from the promotional list. That repeats down the certification: if a veteran heads it again after the first appointment, a veteran must be appointed to the next vacancy, and so on for each appointment made from the same certification.
Two places the preference does less than people expect. Appointing authorities are not required to prefer disabled veterans or veterans when making a provisional appointment from an incomplete list, which is the situation many titles are actually filled in. And in the noncompetitive division there is no list arithmetic at all: preference is simply given among qualified applicants to disabled veterans, then veterans.
If preference is denied for a particular examination, that is an examination related matter and goes to the Commission on appeal. The underlying eligibility determination belongs to the Adjutant General. The two disputes are not the same dispute and they do not go to the same place.
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.
(a) A list of eligibles who have passed an open competitive examination shall appear in the following order: #
1. Eligibles entitled to disabled veterans preference in the order of their scores; #
2. Eligibles entitled to veterans preference in the order of their scores; #
3. Non-veteran eligibles (abbreviated as "NV") in the order of their scores. #
(b) Whenever more than one eligible has the same score and same veterans status, the tie shall not be broken and they shall have the same rank. #
(c) Whenever a disabled veteran or veteran is certified from an open competitive list and a regular appointment is to be made, the appointing authority shall first appoint disabled veterans and then veterans in the order of ranking. For example: TEST SCORES RANKED LIST OF ELIGIBLES Name and Status Score Name and Status Score Rank John Green (NV) 90 Robert Brown (DV) 80 1 Charles Black (V) 85 Charles Black (V) 85 2 Mary White (V) 85 Mary White (V) 85 2 Robert Brown (DV) 80 John Green (NV) 90 3 Jane Silver (NV) 80 Jane Silver (NV) 80 4 Tom Gold (NV) 75 Tom Gold (NV) 75 5 Assuming all eligibles are interested in appointment, Robert Brown must receive the first appointment. The next vacancy must be filled by appointing either Charles Black or Mary White. Assuming Mary White is appointed, the next vacancy must be filled by appointing Charles Black. The next vacancy must be filled by choosing among John Green, Jane Silver and Tom Gold, in accordance with the "rule of three." See N.J.S.A. 11A:4-8. #
(d) Appointing authorities are not required to give preference to disabled veteran or veterans when making a provisional appointment from an incomplete list. See N.J.A.C. 4A:4-1.5. #
Amendment history
Rule numbers, effective dates and New Jersey Register citations as published. 1 recorded change.
- date not statedAdministrative correction23 N.J.R. 2500(c)
How this rule has been applied
6 decisions have cited N.J.A.C. 4A:5-2.1. The list below is citations to those decisions, not the decisions. We have not written summaries for this section. A citation with no summary is deliberate: we do not paraphrase a decision we have not read. Nothing here is legal advice.
Civil Service Commission final determinations (6)
- In re Gabler, Elizabeth Library, CSC Docket No. 2024-21552024 N.J. CSC LEXIS 336Docket 2024-2155
- In re Delcid, Campus Police Officer Recruit (S9999A), Stockton State Univ., CSC Docket No. 2023-2872023 N.J. CSC LEXIS 205Docket 2023-287
- In re Housing Coordinator (M0942R), City of Newark, CSC Docket No. 2016-27842018 N.J. CSC LEXIS 301Docket 2016-2784
- In re Govier, Soc. Worker Health (C0532T), Sussex Cnty., CSC Docket No. 2017-1350 and 2017-2798 (Consolidated)2018 N.J. CSC LEXIS 20Docket 2017-1350 and 2017-2798
- In re Tisch, Program Support Specialist 1, Assistance Programs (S2408N), Statewide, CSC Dkt. No. 2014-188 and 2014-345 (Consolidated)2013 N.J. CSC LEXIS 1212
- In re Harry Tisch, Program Support Specialist 1, Assistance Programs (S2408N), Statewide, CSC Dkt. No. 2014-1882013 N.J. CSC LEXIS 729