The Bombay High Court has dismissed a plea filed by a candidate seeking another chance to complete document verification in a Maharashtra government recruitment process after he failed to appear within the prescribed timeline. The court held that vague claims of illness and failure to check emails could not justify reopening an almost-completed selection process.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Mayur Sakharam Sawant, had applied for the post of Social Service Superintendent (Medical) under the SEBC category pursuant to a recruitment notification issued by the Maharashtra Medical Education authorities. He cleared the examination stage and was later called for document verification scheduled on March 25, 2026.
Before the court, the petitioner argued that he missed the verification process due to health issues and because he was unable to regularly access his email during the relevant period. He claimed that he became aware of the missed schedule only on March 28, 2026, after which he immediately submitted representations requesting one final opportunity.
His counsel contended that the final merit list had not yet been published and granting one more opportunity would not prejudice either the authorities or other candidates. It was also argued that some other candidates had earlier been granted extensions, and denying similar relief to the petitioner amounted to discrimination.
Opposing the petition, the Maharashtra government told the court that the petitioner had already been granted sufficient opportunities but still failed to complete the process. The State pointed out that the petitioner had taken inconsistent stands - at one place blaming illness and elsewhere admitting that he had not been checking his emails regularly.
The government further submitted that no medical records, prescriptions, or certificates had been produced to support the claim of illness. It also informed the court that the recruitment process had substantially progressed and the final selection list was ready for publication.
A division bench of Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Hiten S. Venegavkar observed that candidates participating in public recruitment processes are expected to remain vigilant and comply with notified timelines.
“The entire edifice of the Petitioner’s case rests upon the assertion that he could not participate in the document verification process due to unavoidable circumstances and health issues,” the bench observed, noting that no supporting evidence had been placed on record.
The court further said that negligence in monitoring official communications could not create an obligation on authorities to reopen concluded stages of recruitment. Referring to several Supreme Court judgments, the bench reiterated that recruitment conditions must be strictly followed to ensure fairness and transparency.
Rejecting the Article 14 discrimination argument, the court said the petitioner had failed to prove that his case was identical to candidates who were earlier granted extensions. The bench also declined to accept the plea based on “legitimate expectation,” holding that no candidate could claim indefinite opportunities contrary to recruitment timelines.
Holding that no arbitrariness or illegality was shown in the authorities’ actions, the Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition and refused to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Case Details
Case Title: Mayur Sakharam Sawant vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 6152 of 2026
Judge: Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Hiten S. Venegavkar
Decision Date: May 5, 2026
