Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:52907 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20778 of 2024 Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Aditya,Nagendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Siddharth Singhal Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. Heard Shri Anil Kumar Aditya, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri Siddharth Singhal, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.2. 2. It is contended by Shri Singhal, that the petitioner being selected in the written test was invited for document verification but he failed to appear and accordingly his candidature could not be considered. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent Commission that every information regarding advertisement and thereafter selection and recommendation of every stage of selection is uploaded in the official website of the Commission as per clause 11 of the advertisement No. 4/2018. It is further submitted that there is no provision for intimation of information to every individual who has been selected and, hence, petitioner cannot take the plea that since he was not individually informed and was since posted at Jammu &Kashmir, he could not appear before the Commission for document verification. 4. Upon a pointed query being made Shri Anil Kumar Aditya, learned counsel for petitioner submits that since the internet service was not properly available in Jammu & Kashmir, therefore, he could not get the correct information, even if it was published in the public domain through the official website of the Commission. 5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for respective parties and having perused the records, I find that the advertisement very clearly stipulated vide clause 11 that no individual correspondence shall be done in the matter of selection by the Commission and all information shall be made public by uploading the same on official website of the Commission and it was expected that all the candidates would be getting access to the official website for details. The petitioner before this Court has never questioned the advertisement, rather submitted to the advertisement by applying against the post in question. It is also not disputed that advertisement was also made upon the official website of the Commission. 6. In such circumstances, when the petitioner could have applied for post by visiting the official website of the Commission and was aware of its clause 11 why he would not be visiting the official website of the Commission for every details and information. The plea that internet services was not properly working cannot be a ground itself to direct the Commission for re-exercise of its document verification, moreso in the circumstances when final results have been published. 7. Thus, I do not find any good ground to grant indulgence in the matter. 8. Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 10.4.2025 Nadeem Digitally signed by :- DEEPIKA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad