Aspirant Solely Responsible To Check Recruitment Exam Updates: MP High Court Refuses To Relax Mandatory Timelines On Medical Grounds

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that candidates participating in a recruitment process are solely responsible for regularly monitoring the official exam website for updates and instructions.

The bench of Justice Jai Kumar Pillai thus dismissed the plea of a candidate, aspiring for the post of Assistant Professor, whose candidature was cancelled due to her failure to submit the requisite documents for verification within the prescribed deadline.

The candidate contended that she was suffering from Mixed Connective Tissue Disease, which prevented her from regularly checking the official website, resulting in the delay in submitting the documents.

The bench however observed,

"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. The Commission has categorically disclaimed any obligation to act upon emails, correspondence or telephone communications".

An MP Public Service Commission aspirant filed a petition seeking direction for acceptance of her documents beyond the deadline prescribed for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Botany) under the advertisement of December 30, 2022.

The petitioner, belonging to the Scheduled Tribe, contended that the MPPSC had issued an advertisement inviting 126 posts. Per the instructions, the candidates were required to submit their documents for verification on or before October 25, 2024, failing which the candidature would be cancelled.

This deadline was modified twice, first with late fees of Rs 3,000 and thereafter with later fees of Rs 25,000, extending the deadline till November 11, 2024.

The petitioner sent her documents for verification on November 25, 2024, which was after the prescribed deadline of November 11, 2024, on the grounds that she was ill and therefore could not submit documents within the prescribed deadline. Thereafter, her candidature was cancelled. She approached the High Court, which passed an interim order on December 16, 2024, permitting her to participate in the interview process, subject to the outcome of the petition.

The counsel for the petitioner claimed that she had all the requisite qualifications needed for the appointment. Further, it was argued that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate, contending that she was suffering from Mixed Connective Tissue Disease (MCTD), which prevented her from checking the result and submission of the documents.

The counsel for the respondents claimed that the entire process is governed by the strict terms and conditions of the advertisement. It was claimed that despite the deadline being extended twice, the petitioner failed to submit documents within the prescribed time period.

Additionally, the respondents argued that the petitioner remained inactive for 37 days and eventually submitted only an application without demonstrating that she was suffering from a medical disease resulting in her incapacity.

The bench noted that the candidate has the responsibility to regularly monitor the website of the respondents to obtain information on any updates regarding the appointment.

"the advertisement creates a statutory obligation upon the candidate, and once the petitioner chose to participate in the selection process with open eyes, she is deemed to have accepted these conditions in toto", the court observed.

The bench further emphasised that the terms and conditions of an advertisement are "sacrosanct and cannot be diluted by judicial interpretation".

The court further examined Appendix 1, accompanied by the declared result, and noted that it clearly provides that the consequence of non-submission of documents will lead to cancellation of candidature.

The court observed, "Thus, the cut-off date is not flexible, discretionary or subject to individual hardship. The petitioner admittedly failed to submit her documents within the prescribed time period. Even after extensions were granted with late fees, the petitioner did not comply with the timeline. Once the final date expired, the Commission became functus officio in so far as the petitioner's candidature was concerned".

Further, the court noted that the advertisement does not contain any clause granting relaxation on the document verification schedule on personal or medical grounds. Therefore, it was held that,

"In absence of a statutory provision, no equity can be imported by judicial fiat. Secondly, recruitment to public posts is governed by the principles of certainty, transparency and equal opportunity. Granting relaxation to one candidate on personal grounds would necessarily result in discrimination against other candidates who complied with the schedule despite their own difficulties".

The court rejected the petitioner's contention regarding the grant of an interim order allowing her to participate in the interview and highlighted that participation in the selection process under an interim order protection does not confer any vested right upon the candidate.

Thus, the bench dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Aaradhna Buj v State of MP [2026:MPHC-IND:1944]

For Petitioner: Advocate Prasanna R. Bhatnagar

For State: Government Advocate Drishti Rawal

For MPPSC: Advocate Vindhyavashini Prasad Khare

Click here to read/download the Order