S. R. SINGH AND D. R. CHAUDHARY, JJ. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri W. H. Khan for the petitioner and Sri B. K. Bist for the U. P. Higher Education services Commission and the learned standing counsel representing the State. ( 2 ) PURSUANT to the advertisement No. 27, 28, 29 issued by U. P. Higher Education Services commission. Allahabad in National Daily including Times of India dated 5. 7. 2000 the petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer in Political Science. The application was sent through Speed Post on 31. 7. 2000 from Lohiya Nagar Post Office, Patna. According to the advertisement aforestated, the last date for receipt of application was 5. 8. 2000 as would be evident from Clause III of the advertisement which reads as under :. . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). . ( 3 ) THE application it appears reached its destination on 14. 8. 2000, i,e. , after expiry of the last date. The Commission refused to accept the application on the ground that it was tendered in the office of the Commission after 5. 8. 2000. ( 4 ) THE question that arises for consideration is whether the Post Office was the agent of the respondent-Commission. It has been submitted by Sri W. H. Khan, counsel appearing for the petitioner that in view of the language used in para 3 of the advertisement, the Post Office became the agent of the Commission. ( 5 ) SRI B. K. Bist representing the Commission submits, on the basis of a Division Bench decision of this Court in Ram Autar v. Public Service Commission and others, 1987 UPLBEC 316, that the Commission was justified in not accepting the application which was tendered after expiry of the last date. ( 6 ) WE have given our anxious consideration to the submission of the learned counsel. In commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay South, Bombay v. M/s. Ogale Glass Works Ltd. , AIR 1954 SC 429 (Vol. 41, CN 104), a question arose as to whether the Post Office would be the agent of the addressee in a case where the cheque was sent by post on the request of the creditor. In commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay South, Bombay v. M/s. Ogale Glass Works Ltd. , AIR 1954 SC 429 (Vol. 41, CN 104), a question arose as to whether the Post Office would be the agent of the addressee in a case where the cheque was sent by post on the request of the creditor. The Supreme Court held as under : "there can be no doubt that as between the sender and the addressee, it is the request of the addressee that the cheque be sent by post that makes the post office the agent of the address. " And further :"after such request, the addressee cannot be heard to say that the post office was not his agent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Of course, if there be no such request, express or implied, then the delivery of the letter or the cheque to the Post Office is delivery to the agent of the sender himself. " ( 7 ) THE decision aforestated has been referred and followed by Supreme Court in Indore Malwa united Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bombay, AIR 1966 SC 1466 (V 53 c 288), wherein it has been reiterated that : "if by an agreement, express or implied, by the creditor, the debtor is authorised to pay the debt by a cheque and to send the cheque to the creditor by post, the post office is the agent of the creditor to receive the cheque and the creditor receives payment as soon as the cheque is posted to him. " ( 8 ) RELYING upon the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, a Full Bench of this Court in B. Lal and others v. M. Lal, 1970 ALJ 470, has held as under : "from an analysis of these decisions, two principles emerge : The first is that if the creditor and the debtor reside at two different places served by postal system, from the very fact that the creditor makes a demand through the post, an authority to the debtor to meet his obligation through the post is implied. " ( 9 ) SO far the decision of the Division Bench in Ram Autar (supra), is concerned, it was no doubt held therein that the application sent by registered post if received after expiry of the last date would be liable to be rejected. By the relevant portion of the advertisement as quoted by division Bench in its judgment do not expressly or by necessary implication establish an agreement inviting applications through post office and as such the Division Bench decision on facts is not applicable. ( 10 ) IN the result the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondent-U. P. Higher Education services Commission is directed to entertain the application if the same is presented personally before the Secretary within 10 days from today who shall acknowledge the receipt of the application. .