Failure to appear for document verification on the scheduled date results in forfeiture of selection rights.

The applicant qualified the written examination for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) under Advertisement Notification No. 02 of 2025

He was scheduled to appear before the Document Verification Committee (DVC) on December 18, 2025.

However, due to a severe back injury requiring treatment at Government Medical College, Kathua, he failed to appear personally and instead sent his brother with his documents

The respondents refused to conduct the verification in the applicant’s physical absence.

The applicant approached the Tribunal approximately two and a half months later, by which time a provisional select list had already been issued

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to a direction for document verification after failing to appear personally on the scheduled date due to medical exigencies

2. Whether the forfeiture of candidature under Rule 49 of the Constitution of Document Verification Committees Rules is valid when third-party rights have accrued

Rule 49 of the Constitution of Document Verification Committees Rules, which mandates that candidates failing to appear before the DVC on their fixed date shall forfeit their right to consideration for selection

The court also adhered to the principle that judicial relief cannot be granted if it unsettles vested third-party rights resulting from a petitioner’s delay in approaching the court

Additionally, the court noted the procedural requirement of impleading necessary parties, such as provisionally selected candidates whose appointments might be affected by the litigation

The Tribunal observed that Rule 49 is "clear and binding," making personal appearance on the fixed date a mandatory condition for eligibility

While the Tribunal acknowledged the applicant's medical condition, it highlighted that the applicant "slept over his rights" by filing the Original Application after a delay of two and a half months

During this interval, the recruitment process had progressed to the issuance of a provisional select list, thereby creating vested rights for third-party candidates

The court reasoned that while an exemption for physical appearance might have been granted had the applicant approached the Tribunal "well in time," granting such relief at this belated stage would unfairly unsettle those accrued rights

Furthermore, the court found the application procedurally flawed as the applicant failed to implead the provisionally selected candidates as necessary parties to the proceedings

The court ruled that the delay in seeking legal recourse and the subsequent accrual of third-party rights precluded the grant of any discretionary relief

No order as to costs was made