Recruitment process closure precludes consideration of candidates who failed to appear for document verification despite multiple opportunities.

The petitioner applied for the posts of Hospital Attendant and Assistant Pointsman under Centralized Employment Notice (CEN) No. 02 of 2018.

He successfully cleared the Computer Based Test and Physical Efficiency Test.

The respondent (Railway Recruitment Board) issued call letters for document verification (DV) scheduled for 05.09.2022 and 06.09.2022, and a supplementary DV on 27.09.2022.

The petitioner failed to appear for both, citing a road accident on 30.08.2022.

After earlier litigation (O.A. No. 51/2024), the competent authority passed a reasoned order on 13.09.2024 rejecting his claim on the grounds that the recruitment process had officially closed on 25.10.2022.

The petitioner challenged the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order dated 07.03.2025, which had dismissed his application against said rejection.

1. Whether a candidate can be granted an additional opportunity for document verification after the official closure of the recruitment process.

2. Whether the petitioner's claim of having submitted a representation before the closure of the process was factually sustainable.

The court applied the principle of finality in public recruitment processes, holding that once a recruitment cycle is officially closed (in this case, via notice on 25.10.2022), no further candidates can be considered for empanelment.

The court also relied on the principle of "acquiescence and waiver" regarding procedural deadlines, where the failure of a candidate to approach the authorities or the court before the expiry of the selection timeline precludes subsequent relief.

The Court observed that the petitioner was given two distinct opportunities for document verification but failed to attend either.

Although the petitioner claimed to have submitted a representation on 25.10.2022, the Court found no proof of receipt and noted his own admission during a personal hearing that his first actual representation was only made on 21.08.2023—nearly a year after the process closed.

The Court reasoned that since the recruitment for CEN 02/2018 was formally terminated on 25.10.2022, there was no "selection process in existence" under which the petitioner could be accommodated.

Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner approached the Tribunal only in 2024, by which time the recruitment cycle was long defunct; granting relief after eight years from the advertisement's issuance and four years from its closure would undermine administrative certainty.

It held that the petitioner cannot be granted a "premium for his lapses" especially when the recruitment process has officially stood closed since 25.10.2022.

The Court affirmed the order of the CAT, Patna Bench, finding no infirmity in the decision to deny a stale claim in a concluded recruitment cycle.