Unsuccessful candidate cannot challenge disqualification after inordinate delay once recruitment process attains finality.

The petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Senior Clerk under Advertisement Nos. 8 to 10/2015-16 dated 31.12.2015

While 277 vacancies were notified, only 26 posts were ultimately filled following an administrative assessment by the respondent-Corporation

The petitioner appeared for a written exam in December 2018 and document verification in June 2019

During verification, the petitioner was found ineligible/disqualified and was not included in the final select list published on the official website

The petitioner approached the High Court in 2026, seeking a mandamus for appointment, contending he was never personally communicated the status of his selection and had made representations in 2022 and 2025

1. Whether the respondent-Corporation’s decision to fill fewer vacancies than originally advertised was arbitrary or illegal

2. Whether the petitioner’s claim for appointment is barred by the doctrine of delay and laches

3. Whether mere participation in a recruitment process confers a vested right to appointment

participation in a selection process does not confer an indefeasible or vested right to appointment

writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is equitable and discretionary and cannot be invoked to revive stale claims or help those who are indolent regarding their legal remedies

publication of results on an official website constitutes sufficient constructive notice to candidates, negating the requirement for individual personal communication

The Court reasoned that the petitioner had no enforceable right to the post since he was disqualified during the document verification stage

The Court rejected the petitioner's argument regarding the lack of communication, holding that the publication of the select list on the official website served as sufficient intimation of his rejection

Applying the law to the facts, the Court found the petitioner’s inactivity for nearly seven years—punctuated only by belated representations in 2022 and 2025—to be fatal to the case

The Court emphasized that administrative arrangements crystallize after a recruitment process concludes, and such processes cannot be kept open indefinitely to accommodate unsuccessful candidates

There was no substantive challenge to the actual disqualification decision, only to the failure to fill all advertised seats

It answered the issues by stating that the petitioner acquired no vested right to appointment and had acquiesced to the result by not challenging the disqualification promptly

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the Special Civil Application and the connected Civil Application for stay