JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. 1. In the instant Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant calls in question the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 29.06.2016 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3869 of 2015 by learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant, challenging the cancellation of her candidature on the ground of failure on her part to appear for verification of certificates on the given dates, has been rejected. 2. The facts, giving rise to filing of the writ application, is that in pursuance to Advertisement No. 03 (Pa)/2013 for filling up the post of Lady Supervisor, the petitioner-appellant along with others applied and after going through the selection process list of successful candidates was published in daily newspaper “Prabhat Khabar” and accordingly they were directed to appear for document verification between 25.08.2014 to 28.08.2014. The time for verification of documents was further extended by way of notice published in daily newspaper “Prabhat Khabar” dated 11.09.2014 and 29.10.2014. Finally, the respondent-authority cancelled the candidature of 62 candidates including the petitioner-appellant and notice to that effect was published in daily newspaper dated 06.12.2014. However, after coming to know about cancellation of her candidature, she submitted a representation on 16.02.2015 stating that since at the relevant point of time she was at the advanced stage of pregnancy and was residing at the remote village, where there was no facility of Internet and irregular circulation of newspaper, she could not appear for document verification. But the respondent-authority rejected the representation of the petitioner on 22.05.2015. Being aggrieved, the petitioner knocked the door of this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 3869 of 2015, which was rejected vide order dated 29.06.2016. Hence, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the appellant-petitioner impugning the aforesaid judgment/order passed by learned Single Judge. 3. Heard Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, J.C. to learned G.P.-I for the respondent-State and Mr. Tejo Mistri, for the respondent-Commission. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant submitted with vehemence that at the relevant point of time, when the respondent-authority directed the petitioner-appellant to appear for document verification, she was passing through the advanced stage of pregnancy and was advised by the doctor for rest. Tejo Mistri, for the respondent-Commission. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant submitted with vehemence that at the relevant point of time, when the respondent-authority directed the petitioner-appellant to appear for document verification, she was passing through the advanced stage of pregnancy and was advised by the doctor for rest. It has further been submitted that the husband of the appellant was posted in the difficult terrain of Arunachal Pradesh and hence, she was under compulsion to reside with her family members in the remote village of Bihar, where there was no Internet facility and there was irregular supply of newspaper, therefore, the petitioner was not aware of the notices published in the newspaper for document verification. During course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant has drawn attention of the court to Clause 16.9 of the Prospectus showing that it clearly stipulates that candidates has to clearly mention their correspondence address with PIN Code, for sending Admit Card and other papers by the Commission. But, in the case in hand, no postal correspondence has been made by the Commission for appearance of the petitioner-appellant for document verification. Therefore, the petitioner-appellant was under bona fide impression that any useful information would be communicated to the petitioner but instead thereof, notice was published in local newspaper, therefore, the petitioner-appellant cannot be found blameworthy. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that still there are vacancies and even if candidature of the petitioner is considered in General Category, she can be accommodated against such vacancy on merit. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now she has become over age, hence now there is no ghost of chance of getting employment under the State. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has repelled the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant by canvassing that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and submits that ample opportunity was afforded to the successful candidates including the appellant to appear for verification of their documents through the acceptable means of Internet and further notice to that effect was also published in the newspaper mentioning therein that if they fail to appear for document verification on the date fixed their candidature shall not be considered and it is the appellant who chose not to appear for document verification, hence, there is no illegality in the order impugned. Learned counsel for the respondent-Commission submitted that once the recommendation is sent to the Government for appointment, the process of examination comes to an end and at this stage, same ought not to be re-opened. Moreover, the commission has applied uniform principle for all candidates, therefore, no fault can be attributed to the action of the Commission. 6. After bestowing our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties at length and materials available on record, we are of the considered view that the appellant has been able to make out a case for interference for the following facts and reasons: (i) During course of hearing much emphasis has been laid on Clause 16.9 of the prospectus of Advertisement No. 03 (Pa)/2013 meant for recruitment for the post of Lady Supervisor. For better appreciation, Clause 16.9 of the prospectus of Advertisement No. 03 (Pa)/2013 is reproduced herein below: ^^16- vU;kU; 9- vH;fFkZ;ksa dks lykg nh tkrh gS fd Hkjk gqvk ewy vkosnu i= ,oa vks0,e0vkj0 vkosnu i= vk;ksx dks Hkstus ds iwoZ mls ,d ckj Hkyh Hkkafr tkWap ys rkfd dksbZ =qfV u jg tk;sA vkosnu i= ,oa vks0,e0vkj0 vkosnu esa fu/kkZfjr LFkku ij QksVksa fpidkuk rFkk viuk gLrk{kj djuk ugha Hkwysa D;ksafd fcuk QksVks ,oa gLrk{kj ds vkosnu dks jn~n fd;k tk ldrk gSA vkosnu i= esa fofgr LFkku ij i=kpkj dk irk lkQ&lkQ fiu dksM la[;k ds lkFk fy[kk tk; D;ksafd blh irs ij vH;fFkZ;ksa dks ijh{kk izos'k i= (Admit Card) ,oa vU; i= vk;ksx }kjk Hksts tk;saxsA vkosnd dks ;g Hkh lykg nh tkrh gS fd os Hkjs gq, vkosnu dh ,d Photo copy vius ikl lqjf{kr j[ksa rFkk vkosnu i= dk dzekad Hkh lqjf{kr j[ksaA (Own emphasis) On bare perusal of same, it appears that the candidates were required to furnish the postal address with PIN Code for sending Admit Card and other papers by the Commission. Admittedly, after short listing of the successful candidates there was necessity for certificate verification and notice to that effect was published in newspaper and through means of Internet, but, the mode of postal communication has not been adhered to nor adopted by the Commission before cancelling the candidature of the petitioner-appellant, who under the compelling circumstances was residing in remote village. (ii) It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been declared successful or she secured more marks than cut-off marks, rather, the candidature of the appellant was cancelled for the reason that despite repeated notices through newspaper and Internet, the appellant could not appear for document verification. In this regard, it is the specific case of the petitioner-appellant that she was going through the advanced stage of pregnancy and she had no occasion to know about the notice for her appearance for document verification and the ground taken by the appellant in the writ petition is justified because the respondents abdicated the mode of communication through postal service contrary to the aforesaid Clause and in absence of postal communication the notice through newspaper and Internet cannot be considered to be valid service of notice in view of clear-cut clause in the prospectus itself and also taking into account the peculiar fact situation. (iii) During pendency of the appeal, on the specific query made by this Court vide order dated 8.11.2016 regarding the vacancy position, counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent annexing letter dated 11.11.2016, Annexure A to the Counter affidavit, wherein it is fairly admitted that there are unfilled vacancies. 7. In view of the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, we are constrained to set aside the judgment and order delivered by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 3869 of 2015 dated 29.06.2016 and we feel that there would be miscarriage of justice if we refuse to exercise our jurisdiction to direct the respondent to re-consider the case of the petitioner in view of the aforesaid attending and supervening circumstances. 8. Resultantly, the Letters Patent Appeal stands allowed and respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the appellant and after proper verification of documents and other formalities, if she is found eligible, accommodate the appellant in the existing vacancy within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. However, we make it clear that if the appellant succeeds in getting appointment, her appointment shall not affect any other appointment already made or affect the seniority of any candidate already appointed. Pradip Kumar Mohanty, C.J. : I agree.