An unsubstantiated claim of being turned away cannot justify consideration after missing the interview.

Pursuant to a recruitment notification for the post of Junior Mechanic, the appellant applied and participated partly in the selection process.

She was absent on the date fixed for her interview.

She claimed that an unidentified official at the interview centre orally instructed her to leave, stating that the process had concluded.

She neither identified or impleaded the alleged official nor immediately complained to any higher authority.

The appellant challenged the rejection of her claim in W.P. No. 11975 of 2026, but the writ petition was dismissed on 30 March 2026.

She thereafter filed the present intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

The Division Bench also noted that she was over-aged, being approximately 50 years old even when she participated in the selection process.

Whether the appellant’s unsubstantiated claim that an official orally directed her to leave the interview centre entitled her to be considered for selection despite her absence from the interview.

Whether the appellant could claim consideration for appointment when she was over-aged for the recruitment process.

Whether the order dismissing W.P. No. 11975 of 2026 disclosed any legal or factual infirmity warranting interference in intra-court appeal.

The Court applied the settled principle that judicial review in matters of recruitment and selection is limited and that a candidate seeking corrective relief must establish a credible and supported violation of the selection process.

A bare assertion, unsupported by particulars or contemporaneous complaint, is insufficient to displace the official selection record or to secure consideration for appointment.

The Court also applied the eligibility principle that a candidate who does not satisfy the prescribed age requirement cannot claim selection or appointment.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The appellant admittedly did not attend the interview.

Her explanation rested solely on an oral direction allegedly given by an unidentified official.

The Court found the explanation unreliable because she did not name or implead the official and did not make any immediate complaint to superior authorities.

In the absence of supporting material, the Court declined to interfere with the selection process on the basis of her uncorroborated statement.

Independently, her age of approximately 50 years rendered her over-aged for the recruitment process, providing an additional reason why she could not claim consideration for appointment.

The Division Bench therefore held that the writ court had correctly appreciated the facts and applied the relevant principles governing selection matters.

It held that her unsupported allegation regarding the interview-centre official did not justify treating her as having participated in the interview or granting her consideration for selection, and that she was in any event over-aged.

Finding no infirmity in the writ court’s order dated 30 March 2026, the Division Bench dismissed W.A. No. 2339 of 2026 and closed C.M.P. No. 20523 of 2026.

No order as to costs was made.