Recruitment Processes Must Be Conducted With Certainty & Within Timelines; Courts Can't Reopen Them On Vague Pleas: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court recently held that in cases of public recruitment processes, wherein large number of candidates apply for jobs, courts cannot casually interfere at any stage of the process and order reopening of a particular process especially on vague and unsubstantiated pleas made by any candidate.
A division bench of Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Hiten Venegavkar refused to grant any relief to one Mayur Sawant (31), who had participated in the recruitment process for the post of Social Service Superintendent (Medical) and cleared the examinations for the same which were held in September 2025. His name appeared in the second provisional list published on March 12, 2026 and he was supposed to submit his documents for verification latest by March 25, 2026.
However, Sawant, a resident of Kalyan, contended that he could not access his email during this relevant period and was not aware about the notified schedule. He claimed that he couldn't access email due to his health issues and other personal reasons. He finally checked his email on March 28, 2026 and thereafter approached the authorities on April 1, 2026 seeking one last chance to complete the procedure.
Sawant argued that since the final results of the recruitment process is yet to be published, he may be given one chance to complete the procedure and that the same would not cause any prejudice to anyone. He therefore, sought directions to the Department of Medical Education and Research (DMER) to consider his representation made on April 1.
However, the bench seemed unimpressed with Sawant's contentions, and refused to grant him any relief especially because he could not 'properly' explain the delay on his part to meet the deadlines.
In the judgment authored by Justice Venegavkar, the bench held, "Public recruitment processes involve participation of a large number of candidates and are required to be conducted with certainty, transparency and adherence to timelines. Courts cannot permit such processes to be repeatedly reopened on vague and unsupported pleas. Acceptance of such claims would seriously prejudice administrative discipline and create uncertainty in public appointments. Judicial review under Article 226 is concerned with the decision-making process and not with substituting administrative discretion unless manifest arbitrariness or illegality is demonstrated. In the present matter, we find no arbitrariness, mala fides or procedural illegality on the part of the Respondent authorities."
The judges also dismissed the submission made by Sawant that his representation was orally rejected without hearing and thereby breaching the principles of natural justice.
"The principles of natural justice are not embodied rules to be mechanically applied in every situation irrespective of the factual context. In matters involving public recruitment governed by notified timelines, every candidate is expected to comply with the prescribed schedule. The Petitioner's admitted absence on the notified date coupled with failure to furnish any satisfactory explanation disentitles him from claiming any enforceable right to a personal hearing before rejection of his request. Moreover, the material placed on record indicates that the recruitment process has already substantially progressed and reopening document verification at this stage would adversely affect administrative finality and delay publication of the final selection list," the bench opined.
With these observations, the bench dismissed Sawant's plea.
Appearance:
Advocate Anand Bangar and Nagraj Tarade appeared for the Petitioner.
Additional Government Pleader Priyabhushan Kakade along with Assistant Government Pleader DS Deshmukh represented the State.
Case Title: Mayur Sakharam Sawant vs State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition 6152 of 2026)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 264