JUDGMENT Kamlesh Sharma, J.—These three writ petitions (C. W. P. Nos. 1052 of 1995, 1625 of 1995 and 1293 of 1995) involve common question of facts and law, therefore, these are being disposed of by single judgment, 2. Admit. With the consent of learned Counsel for parties, these writ petitions are heard and disposed of finally. The petitioners in all these writ petitions arc members of Himachal Pradesh Health Service in their capacity as General Duty Officer-II (GDO-II) For admission to Post Graduate Degree and Diploma Courses, the Himachal Pradesh University (hereinafter called the University) holds an open competitive examination and prepares a merit, on the basis of which further selection is made as prescribed in the Prospectus for Post Graduate Degree and Diploma Courses 1995-97/98 (hereinafter called the Prospectus). For this purpose the University issued Notice dated 15-6-1995 for holding competitive examination, which was published in the daily edition of the Indian Express on 1-7-1995. From the copy of Examination Notice, which is filed alongwith the reply-affidavit of the University in C. W P. No. 1052 of 1995, it appears that this was also endorsed to various authorities mentioned therein. As per the Examination Notice the applications complete in all respects alongwith prescribed fee of Rs. 400 were required to reach the University by 7-7-1995 upto 5.00 PM It is also mentioned that the roll numbers alongwith the datasheet to the eligible candidates would be issued at the University counter from 11 00 AM to 4 00 P.M. on 14-7-1995 and 15-7-1995. The competitive examination was to be held on 16-7-1995. 3. In response to the Examination Notice, the petitioner in C. W. P. No, 1052 of 1995, who is presently serving in Primary Health Centre, Tharoch in Tehsil Chopal, sent his application through proper channel, that is, the Chief Medical Officer, Shimla by registered post on 29-6-1995, as prescribed in Para 8.3 (g) of the Prospectus The petitioner has placed on record photo copy of the postal receipt of the registered letter whereby he had sent his application. On 14-74995 the petitioner went to the University for collecting his Roll Number but was surprised to learn that his application had not reached the University. On 14-74995 the petitioner went to the University for collecting his Roll Number but was surprised to learn that his application had not reached the University. On enquiry from the Office of the Director of Health Services Himachal Pradesh, the petitioner came to know that his application was forwarded by the Chief Medical Officer on 13-7-1995, which was received in the Office of the Director of Health Services on 14-7-1995. The Director of Health Services had not forwarded the application of the petitioner, as cut off date as per the Examination Notice was 7-7-1995 It was in these circumstances that the petitioner knocked at the door of this Court. On 15-7-1995 the writ petition was ordered to be listed on 17-7-1995 and the petitioner was permitted to appear in the entrance examination provisionally. However, it was also directed that the result of the examination will not be declared till further orders of this Court. On 17-7-1995 the writ petition was taken up for admission, when learned Counsel appearing for the respondents took four weeks time to file reply-affidavit(s). The respondents 2 to 4 have not filed reply, whereas, the University has filed reply-affidavit praying that the writ petition be heard at an early date so that the result is declared and the courses are started on the scheduled date. 4. Similarly, in C W, P. No. 1256 of 1995, the petitioner in response to the Examination Notice submitted his application dated 3-7-1995 to the Block Medical Officer, Mashobra on 6-7-1995 for further transmission to the University. According to him, since the time left was short, he had also sent one copy of his application complete in all respects direct to the University. He has placed on record memorandum dated nil received by him from the Controller of Examinations, H P. University issuing him provisional Roll Number Slip and directing him to furnish No Objection Certificate from the Director of Health Services within a period of seven days from 16 7-1995 (the date of Entrance Examination), failing which his candidature would stand cancelled. The petitioner appeared in the examination on 16-7-1995 and thereafter approached the Director of Health Services for No Objection Certificate by his letter dated 17-7-1995. The petitioner appeared in the examination on 16-7-1995 and thereafter approached the Director of Health Services for No Objection Certificate by his letter dated 17-7-1995. When he personally contacted the Office of the Director, Health Services, he was told that his application was not considered for forwarding it to the University, as it was received on 11-7-1995 after the cut off date i.e. 7-7-1995. It was in these circumstances that the petitioner approached this Court. 5. When this writ petition was listed before this Court on 7-8-1995, Pt. Om Prakash, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for respondents 1 to 3, took two days time to have instructions in the matter from the Director, Health Services. Again, the writ petition was taken up for further orders on 9-8-1995, when the Director, Health Services, was present in person and he was asked to file his reply-affidavit to make it clear whether the application of the petitioner was received in time or not. The reply on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 dated 14-8-1995 on the affidavit of Doctor K. L. Kapoor, Director, Health Services, Himachal Pradesh has ken filed, wherein it is stated that the application of the petitioner dated 3-7-1995 was received in the Office of the Block Medical Officer, Mashobra on 13-7-1993 and not on 6-7-1995, as alleged by him It is further averred that his application was forwarded to the Principal, Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla on 14-7-1995, who has not further .forwarded it to the Director, Health Services for the reason that the last date for receiving the application in the Office of the University was 7-7-1995. which stood already expired. The petitioner has filed rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated that he had submitted his application on 6-7-1995, which might have been diarised and dispatched by the Office of the Block Medical Officer, Mashobra on 13-7-1995, for which he cannot be held responsible. The petitioner has further specified that his application which was sent direct to the University was received by it before 7-7-1995, on the basis of which provisional Roll Number was issued to him. 6. In C. W. P No. 1293 of 1995, there are two petitioners, who are presently serving in Deen Dayal Upadhya Hospital, Shimla. The petitioner has further specified that his application which was sent direct to the University was received by it before 7-7-1995, on the basis of which provisional Roll Number was issued to him. 6. In C. W. P No. 1293 of 1995, there are two petitioners, who are presently serving in Deen Dayal Upadhya Hospital, Shimla. According to them, the petitioner No. 1 had submitted her application on 4-7-1995 and petitioner No. 2 on 7-7-1995 to the Chief Medical Officer, Shimla with advance copies to the University. When on 14-7-1995, they failed to receive their Roll Numbers, they made enquiry from the Director, Health Services, and came to know that their applications were not forwarded to the University on the ground that these were received after the cut off date. However, on the basis of their applications received by the University direct, they were given provisional Roll Numbers and they did appear in the examination. In these circumstances they have filed the present writ petition. 7. Copy of this writ petition has been supplied to the respondents and notice has also been accepted by the learned Counsel appearing on their behalf Since common questions of facts and law are involved in this writ petition and other writ petitions, which are listed today, the reply-affidavit(s) of the respondents is not called for. 8. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It is not in dispute that all the petitioners in these writ petitions are qualified for degree or diploma courses in their capacity as regular GDOs (HPHS) as provided in Paragraph 3.3 of the Prospectus. The only objection raised on behalf of the Director, Health Services is that the applications were not received in his Office before the cut; off date i.e. 7-7-1995 fixed by the University in the Prospectus as well as in the Examination Notice. Shri C L Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the Director, Health Services has pointed out Paragraph 3.8 of the Prospectus, which provides that no in-service candidate will be eligible to appear in the competitive examination if his or her application is not routed through the administrative heads of the Department, to stress that the application sent direct to the University was of no consequence. Shri Sharma has also drawn our attention to Paragraph 8.3 (g) of the Prospectus, which further provides that in service candidates shall have to apply through proper channel. It is not in dispute that all the petitioners being in-service candidates have applied through proper channel. The dispute is limited to the extent whether they had applied before the cut off date i.e. 7-7-1995 fixed by the University? In the case of the petitioners in C. W. Ps. No. 1256 of 1995 and 1293 of 1995, the University has acknowledged the receipt of applications before the cut off date and has issued provisional Roll Numbers, and directed them to produce No objection Certificate within a period of seven days from 16-7-1995. As such, it is not believable that the petitioners had not submitted their applications through proper channel before the cut off date i.e. 7-7-1995 in their respective Centre/Hospital. Obviously, the delay has occurred in forwarding the applications to the Director, Health Services, for which the petitioners cannot be blamed. 9. Similarly, in the case of the petitioner in C W. P. No. 1052 of 1995, from the postal receipt (Annexure P-l to the writ petition) it is clear that the petitioner had submitted his application on 29-6-1995 even before the Examination Notice was published in the newspaper. Had it not been correct, respondents 2 to 4 would have filed reply-affidavit(s) to controvert these allegations, though sufficient time was granted to them to file their reply-affidavit(s). 10. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances on record we hold that all the petitioners had submitted their applications to their respective Centre/Hospital in time before the cut off date, and if their applications have not reached the Director, Health Services for farther transmission to the University before the cut off date i.e 7-7 1995, they should not suffer. Moreover, in the case of the petitioners in C W. Ps. No. 1256 of 1995 and 1293 of 1995, the University had already entertained the- applications and had given further opportunity to the petitioners to submit No Objection Certificate and in these circumstances it was not proper for the Director of Health Services, Himachal Pradesh/The Director-cum-Principal, Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla to withhold the applications of the petitioners and not to issue No Objection Certificates if they are otherwise qualified. In fact, the cut off date has been fixed by the University and it is the University which can raise objection about not receiving the applications within time. We do not find any provision in the prospectus as well as in the Examination Notice, whereby 4he Director of Health Services/the Principal, Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla has the authority to with hold the applications and not to forward them to the University even if these are received after the cut off date fixed by the University, because it is for the University to reject an application received after the cut off date fixed by it. The purpose of submitting the application through proper channel seems to be to have a complete record of its General Duty Officers who have applied for admission in the Post Graduate Courses and also to verify whether they are qualified as per their service record. There is no other purpose of submitting the applications through proper channel. Above all, submission of applications through proper channel is only a procedural matter and there can be circumstances in which the cut off date is required to be relaxed when it becomes impossible to be followed. The result of above discussion is that there is merit in these writ petitions and these are allowed. The respondents, except the University, are directed to forward the applications of the petitioners along with No Objection Certificates issued in their favour on or before 23-8-1995 and the University will declare the result on 24-8-1995. Costs on parties. Petitions allowed.