In recruitment advertisements, notification channels listed using the word 'or' function as alternative modes. Consequently, publishing information on a designated portal is sufficient to establish due notice, and the absence of individual communication via alternative channels does not invalidate the process.

JUDGMENT : (per Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)

1. The present intra-court appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 28.04.2026 passed in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1108/2026, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant-writ petitioner, seeking quashing of the order dated 30.09.2025, by which her representation for giving her another opportunity for document verification in the recruitment process for the post of Deputy Librarian was rejected, has been dismissed.

2. The case of the appellant was that she was declared successful in the written examination and, thereafter, the process of document verification was undertaken by the Commission on 10.06.2025, on basis of a notice published by it on 05.06.2025 on its official website, which was not in the knowledge of the appellant and, therefore, she could not appear in the said process of document verification. The Commission rejected the candidature of the appellant because she could not appear at the stage of document verification for lack of proper intimation. She made a representation for giving her one more opportunity to appear for document verification, but the said representation was also rejected. The same was assailed before the Writ Court. The Writ Court has dismissed the writ petition by observing that, under the advertisement, the necessary information was to be furnished by the Selecting Body to the candidates by e-mail, SMS or by uploading the information on the official website. The Commission had uploaded the information regarding the date, on which document verification was to be held, and in case the appellant, despite the aforesaid step taken by the Commission, did not appear in the document verification, then she has to blame herself, and the Commission cannot be faulted for that. Accordingly, the writ petition has been dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, as per Clause 03 of the advertisement, important information was to be furnished to the candidates by the Selecting Body by uploading the information on its website, e-mail or SMS. According to him, apart from uploading the information on website, the Commission was also required to inform the candidates, either through e-mail or SMS. In the instant case, since the information was only uploaded on website, and not given through e-mail or SMS, therefore, the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition. Learned counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on Clause 16(12) of the advertisement in support of his submission.

4. Under the recruitment scheme, as per Clause 02, applications were to be submitted only through online mode on the official website, i.e. www.sssc.uk.gov.in by 04.01.2025. Under Clause 03, the Commission had the option to conduct the examination by offline or online mode. The further provision in the said clause is that the date for submitting the application form, as notified, is final. In case there is any change in the date, the same would be notified separately on the website and through newspapers, as well as on mobile number and e-mail. However, the admission cards were to be downloaded by the candidates from the official website. The same would not be sent to them in hardcopies. The further stipulation is that the important information would be provided to the candidates by the Commission through its website, e-mail or SMS. Thus, there were three alternative modes, which were available, namely intimation through website, or e-mail, or SMS.

5. The contention that the intimation, apart from upload