JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This appeal is directed against the learned Single Judge’s order dated 03.11.2025 dismissing the petitioner’s/appellant’s W.P. (S) No. 5930 of 2025 by which the petitioner was in fact, seeking condonation of delay for document verification in the context of Jharkhand Laboratory Assistant Competitive Examination, 2023 in terms of Advertisement No. 01/2023.

3. The petitioner belongs to the reserved category (SC), and there is no dispute that the petitioner was declared successful in the competitive examination. By notice dated 03.09.2024, he was called upon to attend on 13.09.2024 for document verification. The notice, in addition to being published on the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (JSSC) portal/website, was communicated to the petitioner by e-mail. Even the petitioner has not disputed this position.

4. Further, the notice dated 03.09.2024 provides that if, for any reason, the petitioner is unable to attend on 13.09.2024, he would attend on 18.09.2024 between 11:00 AM and 4:00 PM for document verification.

5. Clause 3 of the notice dated 03.09.2024, in clear and categorical terms, provides that if the petitioner/appellant fails to remain present for document verification either on 13.09.2024 or on 18.09.2024, no further extension of time would be granted, and further, the candidature of the petitioner would be cancelled.

6. The petitioner’s case is that, between 13.09.2024 and 17.09.2024, his sister was ill and was admitted to the hospital. Therefore, he could not attend the document verification scheduled on 13.09.2024 and on 18.09.2024. He, however, pleaded that he attended the document verification on the next day, i.e., on 19.09.2024.

7. Dr. (Mrs.) Vandana Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the case of the petitioner should be governed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision rendered in the case of Shreya Kumari Tirkey vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. [S.L.P. (Civil) No. 27139 of 2024 decided on 04.09.2025] wherein it has been held that the procedure should not be allowed to term the substantive rights of the parties. She also points out that the JSSC, in this case, had kept one seat reserved for SC candidates suo-moto. Therefore, no prejudice would be occasioned if an extension of a day was granted to the petitioner for document verification. For these reasons, she submits that the appellant’s writ petition should have been allowed and relief as prayed for in the same granted.

8. Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel for the respondent-JSSC, submits that the JSSC has gone by the terms of the advertisement and the notices issued to all the candidates. He submits that there was no provision for relaxation, and that more than sufficient opportunities had already been granted to all the candidates, including the petitioner. He submits that the notice/advertisement clearly provides the consequences of not attending the document verification. He submits that Shreya Kumari Tirkey’s case (supra) is distinguishable because no consequences for not attending the medical examination were specified in the advertisement or in the notice, and further, there was no matter concerning the crucial aspects of document verification.

9. Mr Sanjoy Piprawall further submits that if any relaxation is granted to the petitioner based on the alleged individual hardships projected, there are several other candidates belonging to the reserved category, who have, in fact, secured higher merit positions than the petitioner, but were not considered for their failure to attend the document verification.

10. Mr Sanjoy Piprawall submits that the case of the petitioner is covered by the decision of a coordinate Bench rendered in the case of Nirmal Pahan and Ors. vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors. [L.P.A. No. 143 of 2024 & other analogous cases] and the decisions of Bedanga Talukdar vs. Saifudaullah Khan and Others reported in (2011) 12 SCC 85; State of Uttar Pradesh & Others vs. Pankaj Ku