Hiring for months but rejecting qualified candidates? Manager’s 6-minute rejection raises questions about HR tech

A team lead who said his company had struggled to fill a vacancy for months claimed he was rejected within six minutes after applying under a different name. The alleged mismatch between ‘React’ and ‘React.js’ has sparked debate over automated screening.

A company’s struggle to fill a vacancy has sparked debate about automated recruitment after a manager claimed on Reddit that his application for a position on his own team was rejected within six minutes.

In the post, the manager said his team had been trying to fill a senior associate position for months, with the human resources department repeatedly reporting difficulties finding suitable candidates. To understand why applicants were not progressing, he said he applied for the vacancy using a different name and email address.

According to his account, the application was rejected almost immediately, despite his familiarity with the role and its requirements.

The manager alleged that the screening process may have relied on an exact keyword match, with the system looking for “React.js” while his CV listed “React”. The claim raises questions about whether rigid screening criteria can prevent potentially suitable candidates from reaching human it.

The account has not been independently verified, and the precise configuration of the company’s recruitment system is not publicly established.

How a manager was rejected for his own team’s vacancy

According to the Reddit post, the manager led a team of nine employees and was responsible for filling the senior associate position. He said the vacancy had remained open since April, even as the HR department continued to report that the candidate pipeline was weak.

He decided to test the recruitment process by submitting an application under a different name and using a new email address. The CV was based largely on his own qualifications and experience, including skills relevant to the job description he said he had written.

The application was rejected within six minutes, according to the post.

The manager said he subsequently spent a week trying to establish what had triggered the rejection. He alleged that the discrepancy between “React” and “React.js” may have caused the screening system to filter out his application.

The manager wrote: “We have been rejecting every qualified applicant since april over punctuation, while i sat in weekly meetings being told the market was tough."

If accurate, the account illustrates how narrowly configured screening criteria could potentially exclude candidates whose skills match a role but whose CVs use different terminology.

(Disclaimer: This article is based on a viral social media post and online reactions. LiveMint cannot independently verify the authenticity of the content and does not claim or endorse it.)​​

About the Author

Anjali Thakur is a Senior Assistant Editor with Mint, reporting on trending news, entertainment and health, with a focus on stories driving digital conversations. Her work involves spotting early signals across news cycles and social media, sharpening stories for SEO and Google Discover, and mentoring young editors in digital-first newsroom practices. She is known for turning fast-moving developments—whether news-driven or culture-led—into clear, tightly edited journalism without compromising editorial rigour.<br><br> Before joining Mint, she was Deputy News Editor at NDTV.com, where she led the Trending section and covered viral news, breaking developments and human-interest stories. She has also worked as Chief Sub-Editor at India.com (Zee Media) and as Senior Correspondent with Exchange4media and Hindustan Times’ HT City, reporting on media, advertising, entertainment, health, lifestyle and popular culture.<br><br> Anjali holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Miranda House, and is currently pursuing an MBA, strengthening her understanding of business strategy and digital media economics. Her writing balances newsroom discipline with a clear instinct for what resonates with readers.