JUDGMENT 1. - The dispute in this petition relates to the petitioner's admission in Shiksha Shastri Course, 1995 which is conducted by Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, New Delhi (respondent No. 2). Admission to this course is done through Pre-Shiksha Shastri Test (PSST). It is conducted at Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapeeths as per the guidelines, the results of candidates are intimated by mail and placement of the candidate to the particular Vidyapeeth is to be made on the basis of merit. There is no dispute that the petitioner appeared in PSST at Jaipur Centre. The result of the examination was declared on July 15, 1995 and as per this list, the petitioner was successful in the test. The first list of the successful candidates including the name of the petitioner was declared on July 15, itself thereafter, second and third lists were also issued. The petitioner was selected for giving admission to the Shiksha Shastri Course and Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapeeth, Lucknow, was allotted to him. As per the intimation sent to the petitioner vide letter dated, 20.10.95, he was required to report to the Principal, Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapeeth, Lucknow on or before November 6, 1995. The intimation letter was sent to the petitioner by ordinary post which was delivered to him on November 13, 1995, at his village Parma-Ki-Dhani. the petitioner has submitted the original cover of the letter dated, 20.10.95 issued by the respondent No. 2. 2. As per the petitioner's case, on receiving the aforesaid letter, he met the Principal, Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapeeth, Jaipur on November 16, but he was advised to go to Delhi and meet the Dy. Director or Director of respondent No. 2. Thereafter, on November 17, he met the Dy. Director (Examination) respondent No. 5, Shri Dharmaveer Singh and brought to his notice that on account of delay in delivery of the letter, it was not possible for him to report to the Principal, Sanskrit Vidyapeeth, Lucknow, on or before November 6, 1995. He was further requested to grant him admission as there was no fault on his part. However, the Dy. Director expressed his inability to provide admission and the same reply was given by the Director when the petitioner met him. The petitioner, in these circumstances, has approached this Court seeking appropriate direction in the matter. 3. The factual aspect is not much in dispute. However, the Dy. Director expressed his inability to provide admission and the same reply was given by the Director when the petitioner met him. The petitioner, in these circumstances, has approached this Court seeking appropriate direction in the matter. 3. The factual aspect is not much in dispute. The postal stamp of the Post Office, Kakrola, which is the receiving Post Office, contains 11.11.95 as the date on which it was received at the said Post Office and from where it was sent to the village of the petitioner namely, Parma-Ki-Dhani. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5, after seeing the original outer cover, is not in a position to dispute the contention of the petitioner that he received delayed information about his being selected in the test and that it was not possible for him to report to the Principal, Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapeeth, Lucknow, on or before 6th November as per direction given in the said letter. The averments made in the petition about the petitioner's meeting with the Dy. Director (Examination) and the Director of respondent No. 2 has not been specifically denied by the respondents. However, the contention of the learned counsel for the contesting respondents is that the letter was sent by respondent No. 2 on 20.10.95 well within time and if it was lately delivered to the petitioner due to fault of the Post Office, no relief can be given to him. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner did not report to the Principal of the Sanskrit Vidyapeeth at Lucknow on or before 6th November, he was not entitled to get any relief from this Court. 4. At the out-set, it may be stated that it is not disputed before me that the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, New Delhi, which conducts Shiksha Shastri Course, is an instrumentality of the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource and Development and it is amenable to writ jurisdiction. 5. A short question, therefore, requires consideration, 'Whether the petitioner can be denied admission to Shiksha Shastri Course simply because he got delayed information, though, he is otherwise entitled to get admission ? As per the guidelines issued by respondent No. 2, the responsibility of giving intimation to the candidates about their results was on the respondent No. 2. 5. A short question, therefore, requires consideration, 'Whether the petitioner can be denied admission to Shiksha Shastri Course simply because he got delayed information, though, he is otherwise entitled to get admission ? As per the guidelines issued by respondent No. 2, the responsibility of giving intimation to the candidates about their results was on the respondent No. 2. The intimation was to be given by mail.As per the respondents, the intimation was sent to the petitioner by ordinary post vide letter which was mailed on 20.10.95. Assuming that the letter was mailed in time, but this fact is not in dispute and cannot be disputed that intimation was received by the petitioner on November 13, 1995 after expiry of the date on which he was required to report to the Principal of Vidyapeeth at Lucknow. There was no fault of the petitioner in this connection. It is also undisputed that the petitioner is not at fault for not getting intimation in time. After getting late intimation, the petitioner contacted all the concerned authorities, but no relief was granted to him simply on the ground that the date of reporting to the Principal at Lucknow had expired. 6. In Randhir Singh v. State of Haryana and another, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 2209, the petitioner's son could not get admission because, he was not available for medical test on appointed date owing to belated intimation. The Principal and Director of the School turned down the request and thereafter, the petitioner approached the High Court for appropriate writ. The High Court also dismissed the writ petition in limine. Thereafter, a Special Leave Petition was filed before the Supreme Court, which was allowed by observing as under : "We have made a reference to the circumstances in which the intimation was delayed, but there can be no doubt that the appellant was not to blame for it. He was in fact anxious to secure his son's admission in the school and had done all that he could in that direction. There is, therefore, no justification for the stand taken by the respondents in their counter-affidavit to the contrary." In Dr. He was in fact anxious to secure his son's admission in the school and had done all that he could in that direction. There is, therefore, no justification for the stand taken by the respondents in their counter-affidavit to the contrary." In Dr. Annada Prasad Patnaik v. State of Orissa and others, AIR 1989 Orissa 130 , a Division Bench of Orissa High Court in similar circumstances held : "Where delivery can be made in a mode at option of the sender, the agency through which delivery is made acts as the agent of the sender whereas if delivery is made by way of despatch in the mode stipulated or prescribed by the addressee, the agency through which the article is despatched acts as the agent of the addressee." In an unreported Judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3581/95 decided on 14.11.95 has also taken a similar view. 7. In view of the above discussion, I am of the view that on account of belated information, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. The responsibility of sending intimation of the result was of respondent No. 2 and if the delay was caused even by the Post Office, which was acting as its agent, the petitioner's right cannot be defeated.Consequently, the petition is allowed. The respondent Nos. 2 and 5 are directed to issue fresh admission letter to the petitioner of Shiksha Shastri Course, 1995 either Lucknow or for Jaipur Vidyapeeth within 15 days from today. For the purpose of minimum percentage, the attendance of the petitioner shall be counted from the date he is given admission in the course. Costs is made easy in the facts and circumstances of the case.Petition allowed. *******