Candidate's negligence in monitoring recruitment schedules bars judicial interference under Article 226 for missed document verification.

The Petitioner applied for the post of Social Service Superintendent (Medical) under the SEBC category pursuant to Recruitment Notification No. 4/853/25

He appeared for the examination on September 26, 2025, and was subsequently shortlisted in the second provisional merit list on March 12, 2026

He was allotted March 25, 2026, for document verification but failed to attend

The Petitioner claimed he missed the schedule due to health issues and inability to access his email

He submitted representations on April 1, 2026, seeking an extension to complete verification before the final list's publication

The Respondents opposed the petition, noting that the Petitioner had already been acknowledged as having missed two opportunities and failed to provide medical evidence of his incapacity

1. Whether a candidate's failure to monitor official communications and attend document verification due to unsubstantiated medical reasons warrants judicial interference in a recruitment process under Article 226

2. Whether the denial of an extension for document verification amounts to arbitrary discrimination or a violation of the principles of natural justice and legitimate expectation

The court applied the principle that recruitment conditions must be strictly adhered to as established in Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan, emphasizing that transparency and equality require strict compliance with advertised terms

It relied on Madan Lal Ors. v. State of J K, holding that candidates cannot challenge a process due to their own negligence after participating

Regarding Article 14, the court applied State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh, which clarifies that "negative equality" is impermissible—an illegality in favor of one cannot be claimed as a right by another

Finally, it cited Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India to affirm that provisional selection does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment

The Court observed that the Petitioner provided vague and inconsistent explanations for his absence, oscillating between "medical illness" and "failure to check email," without producing a single medical certificate or diagnostic report

The Court reasoned that in competitive online recruitment, candidates bear a high duty of diligence to monitor official updates; negligence cannot impose an obligation on the State to reopen concluded stages

It further determined that the Petitioner was not "identically situated" to those granted extensions, as his claims were unsubstantiated

The Court held that the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot override established procedural timelines or public interest in administrative finality

Reopening the process at this late stage would cause administrative chaos and delay the final selection for all other candidates

The Writ Petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged with no order as to costs