Candidates Must Monitor Official Recruitment Website For Recruitment Updates; MP High Court Refuses To Relax Recruitment Document Verification Timelines On Medical Grounds
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Jai Kumar Pillai dismissed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a candidate’s candidature in an Assistant Professor recruitment, holding that applicants must themselves keep track of all updates and instructions by regularly checking the official examination website. The petitioner, a provisionally shortlisted aspirant, sought a direction to the recruiting commission to accept verification documents after the final deadline, contending that illness prevented timely compliance. The Court found that the recruitment instructions placed the onus of vigilance on candidates and provided clear consequences for non-submission within the stipulated time and therefore declined to order acceptance of documents beyond the cut-off date.
The petitioner claimed eligibility on the basis of requisite educational qualifications, including qualification in the State Eligibility Test, and participation in the written examination conducted pursuant to the recruitment advertisement. After the declaration of the written examination result, provisional candidates were required to submit documents for verification within a stipulated period, with extensions granted on payment of late fees. The petitioner failed to submit documents within both the original and extended timelines. A subsequent representation citing illness as the reason for non-compliance was rejected by the recruiting authority.
The petitioner contended that the delay was unintentional and attributable to medical reasons and argued that the extensions granted demonstrated flexibility in timelines. The recruiting authority opposed the petition, asserting that the recruitment process was governed strictly by the advertisement and instructions, which clearly mandated cancellation of candidature upon failure to submit documents within the prescribed time.
The Court examined the governing conditions of the recruitment process and recorded that the advertisement and accompanying instructions imposed a clear obligation on candidates to regularly monitor the official website for updates. It noted that “the responsibility to regularly monitor the Commission’s website for all information relating to the advertisement, amendments, results and further instructions is solely upon the candidate”.
Referring to the document submission instructions appended to the result, the Court observed that “the language used in the clause is peremptory, mandatory and self-executory” and that the consequence of non-submission within the stipulated date was clearly specified. It further recorded that “the cut-off date is not flexible, discretionary or subject to individual hardship”.
On the plea of illness, the Court stated that “the advertisement and Appendix-1 do not contain any clause enabling relaxation of the document verification schedule on medical or personal grounds” and that in the absence of such a provision, equitable considerations could not be introduced. The Court also observed that granting relaxation to an individual candidate would undermine equal opportunity, noting that “recruitment to public posts is governed by the principles of certainty, transparency and equal opportunity”.
Addressing the interim order permitting participation in the interview, the Court recorded that “participation in a selection process pursuant to an interim order does not confer any vested or equitable right upon the candidate”. It further observed that once the selection process had been concluded and recommendations forwarded, “the same ought not to be unsettled at a belated stage”.
The Court distinguished the precedent relied upon by the petitioner, stating that “the petitioner’s failure is not a trivial error but a clear violation of the mandatory timeline prescribed for submission of documents”.
The Court recorded that “the writ petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of merit”. Pending applications, if any, shall be disposed of accordingly”. The Court clarified that the interim order permitting participation in the interview was conditional and that “upon dismissal of the petition on merits, stands merged with and disposed of in terms of the present order”.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Shri Prasanna R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel.
For the Respondents: Ms. Drishti Rawal, learned Government Advocate for the State; Shri Vindhyavashini Prasad Khare, learned counsel for the Public Service Commission.
Case Title: Smt. Aaradhna Buj v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Neutral Citation: 2026: MPHC-IND:1944
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 39107 of 2024
Bench: Justice Jai Kumar Pillai
