JUDGMENT R. Devdas, J. - The petitioner who is an aspirant for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) had applied for selection in terms of the recruitment notification dated 24.08.2018. Based on the marks scored in the competitive examination conducted by the Karnataka Examination Authority and reservations mentioned in the recruitment notification, candidates were considered in the ration of 1:3 for verification of their original documents. The respondent-Board published a notification dated 26.09.2019, web-hosted the notification specifying the place, date and instructions/special intimation to the candidates, in its official website. Intimation was sent to every candidate by registered post acknowledgment due. 2. It is also the contention of the respondent-Board that the notification dated 26.09.2019 was advertised in daily newspaper for information of the candidates. Various time-slots were given to the candidates for document verification. As per the said notification, the petitioner was required to appear before the Committee for document verification on 31.10.2019. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that she did not receive the intimation for document verification. It is her contention that she came to know about the verification dated 26.09.2019 through her friend. On verification when she found that she was required to appear before the Committee on 31.10.2019 and that date had already gone by, she made a representation dated 19.02.2020 to the respondent-Board seeking one more opportunity for document verification. Since her representation was not considered, the petitioner filed W.P.No.4464/2020 before this Court for quashing the provisional main selection list published by the Board on 20.02.2020. This Court by order dated 17.03.2020 was of the opinion that failure on the part of the postman in discharging his duty by omitting to leave behind an intimation, should not deprive the petitioner an opportunity and the respondents of a competent candidate and therefore directed the respondent- Board to positively consider the petitioner s representation at Annexure F therein, within a period of three weeks from the date of the order. 4. The respondent-Board being aggrieved by the order dated 17.03.2020 passed by this Court preferred an intra- Court appeal in W.A.No.332/2020. The Hon ble Division Bench by an interim order dated 10.06.2020 stayed the execution and operation of the order dated 17.03.2020. 4. The respondent-Board being aggrieved by the order dated 17.03.2020 passed by this Court preferred an intra- Court appeal in W.A.No.332/2020. The Hon ble Division Bench by an interim order dated 10.06.2020 stayed the execution and operation of the order dated 17.03.2020. However, since in terms of the directions given by this Court one more representation was given by the petitioner on 10.06.2020 to the Board and the Board had issued an endorsement dated 17.06.2020 and the petitioner had already filed this writ petition challenging the endorsement dated 17.06.2020, the Hon ble Division Bench observed that this Court may deal with the Writ Petition without being influenced by the pendency of the writ appeal and the earlier order of this Court in W.P.No.4464/2020. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner stood third amongst the women candidates and she had a fairly high chance of getting selected. It is only because of the non-receipt of the information which was sent by RPAD, that the petitioner could not appear before the Committee for document verification. It is submitted that for no fault of the petitioner could she be denied an opportunity to submit her documents for verification. 6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent-Board draws the attention of this Court to certain facts, which according to him are relevant for consideration. Taking this Court through the statement of objections, it is submitted that nearly 60 intimation letters sent through RPAD have returned unserved, for various reasons. Similar grievances were also found with respect to women candidates who stood at Sl.Nos.1 and 2 in the list. However, Ms.Hemalatha G., who stood at Sl.No.2 who did not receive the intimation, presented herself on the appointed date, since she went through the information given in the official website of the Board. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the notification dated 26.09.2019 was web-hosted and the details of place, date and time for document verification was clearly published, not only in the official website, but also advertised through daily newspapers. Moreover, it is submitted that special instructions were issued to all the candidates making it clear that those candidates who have not received the intimation for presenting the original documents, are required to attend for document verification by considering the publication of the notification as an intimation to them. Moreover, it is submitted that special instructions were issued to all the candidates making it clear that those candidates who have not received the intimation for presenting the original documents, are required to attend for document verification by considering the publication of the notification as an intimation to them. It was also made clear that no personal phone calls or communication will be made to the candidates over telephone. The candidates were also informed to contact the Helpline Nos.080-22945386 and 080-22238888 during office hours for any information with respect to the recruitment. 7. Learned Counsel for the respondent-Board further submits that the RPAD cover by which the intimation was sent to the petitioner returned with the postal shara door locked . From the averments made in the writ petition, it is pointed out that the petitioner admits that the address shown on the postal cover is as shown by the petitioner. However, the petitioner contends that only two persons reside in the petitioner s house, that being the petitioner and her mother. Both the persons are employed and therefore, on all the three occasions when the postman sought to deliver the postal cover, the door was found locked. It is therefore submitted that no fault in this regard could be found with the respondent-Board. 8. The learned Counsel further submits that the notification for document verification was published on 26.09.2019. The date and time for the petitioner s document verification was 31.10.2019 which means that more than a month s prior notice was given and published in the official website and daily newspapers. The process of document verification was held between 24.10.2019 and 04.11.2019. The Direct Recruitment Verification Committee met on 06.01.2020 and took a decision after verifying the documents of the candidates and with respect to the petitioner and similarly placed persons, the Committee decided to treat them as absent . The Committee thereafter prepared the merit list of candidates based on the vertical and horizontal reservations. In the meeting dated 17.02.2020, the Committee gave its approval for publication of provisional main select list and the additional list, in terms of the recruitment notification. The list was approved in the meeting dated 18.02.2020. The approved list was sent to the recruitment authority for notification. It is at this juncture, i.e., on 19.02.2020, when all the process was over that the petitioner submitted her representation. 9. The list was approved in the meeting dated 18.02.2020. The approved list was sent to the recruitment authority for notification. It is at this juncture, i.e., on 19.02.2020, when all the process was over that the petitioner submitted her representation. 9. Learned Counsel for the respondent-Board submits that the Direct Recruitment Verification Committee, the Recruitment Authority and the respondent-Board have acted strictly in accordance with the Rules governing the recruitment process and in accordance with the recruitment notification. It is submitted the allegation made by the petitioner that the respondent-Board has acted with malice and bias, is totally unfounded. It is submitted that almost all the 60 candidates who did not get the intimation had similar grievance and all of them have been treated in accordance with the rules and regulations. No deviation has been made by the respondent-Board with respect to any of the said candidate who was placed similar to that of the petitioner. On the other hand, it is submitted that if the petitioner s candidature is required to be considered, then similar treatment was also required to be given to the other candidates. It is therefore submitted that there would be no end to such grievances and the entire recruitment process would be derailed and the respondent-Board would have been accused of being biased in its approach. The learned Counsel submits that when once the recruitment process has been completed in accordance with law, the petitioner s grievance cannot be considered by the respondent-Board and this Court should not entertain such petitions on the ground of equity. 10. In this regard, the learned Counsel places reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar & Ors Vs. Amrendra Kumar Mishra, (2006) 12 SCC 561 , to contend that at the most, the petitioner may have a grievance against the postal department for non-delivery of the postal cover and not leaving any information with the neighbours to collect the postal cover. If that being the case, it is submitted that the petitioner may have to proceed against the postal department and not against the respondent-Board. 11. Heard the learned Counsels and perused the petition papers. 12. On facts, there cannot be any dispute that the intimation for document verification was sent by the respondent-Board to the petitioner. If that being the case, it is submitted that the petitioner may have to proceed against the postal department and not against the respondent-Board. 11. Heard the learned Counsels and perused the petition papers. 12. On facts, there cannot be any dispute that the intimation for document verification was sent by the respondent-Board to the petitioner. The unserved postal cover containing the postal shara door locked remains in the possession of the respondent-Board. Though it is argued by the learned Counsel for the respondent-Board that special instructions were given to the candidates in the notification dated 26.09.2019 that the notification has also been published in the official website and that such of the candidates who have not received the physical postal information regarding the place, time and date for submitting the documents should treat the information provided in the official website as personal information and the candidates shall present the documents for verification was made known to the candidates, the same cannot readily be accepted since it is the contention of the petitioner that she did not know about the publication of the notification in the website. However, as a prudent person competing for recruitment, the petitioner was required to keep track of things. No fault can be found with the respondent-Board of having violated any provision or requirement of law. This Court should take note of the predicament of the respondent-Board that similar treatment has been given to similarly placed candidates. Even the candidate who stood at Sl.No.1 amongst the women candidates also lost the opportunity, for the very same reason. 13. This Court is of the considered opinion that strict interpretation is required to be made in the matter of recruitments. This is so because the chances of allegations of bias and malice could easily be made against the recruitment authority if there is any deviation and the benefit of such deviation gives the benefit to some of the candidates. Under such circumstances, if the recruiting authority takes a decision contrary to the announced process, it may attract allegations of bias and partiality. 14. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent- Board, in the words of the Apex Court, while construing a statute, sympathy has no role to play. Under such circumstances, if the recruiting authority takes a decision contrary to the announced process, it may attract allegations of bias and partiality. 14. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent- Board, in the words of the Apex Court, while construing a statute, sympathy has no role to play. This Court cannot interpret the provisions of the said Act ignoring the binding decisions of the constitution bench of this Court only by way of sympathy to the workmen concerned. This is a paragraph quoted from Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Ram Lal and Others, (2005) 2 SCC 638 , as quoted in Amrendra Kumar Mishra s case (supra). In A.Umarani Vs. Registrar, Coop. Societies which was again quoted, it was held that in a case of this nature this Court could not even exercise its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of Indian on misplaced sympathy. Similarly in Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. Vs. U.T.Chandigarh, (2004) 2 SCC 130 , it was held that we have no doubt in our mind that sympathy or sentiment by itself cannot be a ground for passing an order in relation whereto the appellants miserably fail to establish a legal right. It is further trite that despite an extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction contained in Article 142 of the Constitution of India, this Court ordinarily would not pass an order which would be in contravention of a statutory provision. 15. Therefore it is clear that unless and until the petitioner is able to make out a case establishing her legal right, interference by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised on misplaced sympathy. Moreover, the entire recruitment process has been completed and any indulgence shown by this Court at this stage to the petitioner, will open a pandora s box derailing the entire recruitment process. 16. Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that no interference is called for in this case. The impugned endorsement dated 17.06.2020 cannot be found fault with. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. Ordered accordingly.