As per case facts, the petitioner, an SC (Physically Handicapped) candidate, was provisionally selected for a retail outlet dealership under Group-2. He uploaded initial documents and paid a security deposit. ... Subsequently, the respondent corporation requested him to rectify certain document deficiencies within a specified period. Due to severe illness, the petitioner failed to address these rectifications within the given timeframe. As a result, his application was rejected for Group-2 and moved to Group-3, which significantly diminished his chances. The petitioner contended that his non-compliance was unintentional and due to his health, arguing the rejection was illegal and arbitrary. The question arose whether the respondent authorities' action of rejecting the petitioner's application and moving his candidature from Group-2 to Group-3, due to unrectified deficiencies, was sustainable and whether it infringed any legal or statutory right given his health condition. Finally, the court held that the respondent's action was strictly in accordance with the governing selection guidelines. It reiterated that failure to submit rectified documents within the stipulated time automatically entails rejection or movement to Group-3, with no discretion for extension. The court observed that the petitioner failed to provide satisfactory medical records to support his claim of being unable to access communications during the critical period. Since the guidelines were unchallenged and no legal or statutory right was infringed, the court dismissed the Writ Petition, confirming the respondent's decision was valid.