Judgment : Writ Petitions under Article 226 of constitution of India praying that in these circumstances stated therein and in the respective affidavits filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other writ or order or direction in the nature of a writ to call for the records relating to the Proceedings in Memorandum No.2669/APD-E1/MVI-Gr-II/2007 dt. 17. 2007 issued by the respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to consider the petitioner for appointment to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-II in accordance with notification dt 21.04.2007 (in WP.25401/07) and (ii) grant an interim Direction directing the respondent to permit the petitioner to sit for the written exam to be held on 29.07.2007, as per notification dated 24. 2007, for appointment of Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade II, by issuing necessary Hall ticket (in MP.1/07) respectively pending WP.25401/07 Mr. G. Sankaran, learned Special Government Pleader and Mr. A. Arul takes notice for the respondents. 2. In all these writ petitions, the grievance of the petitioners are that the rejection of their applications for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector, Grade II in pursuance of the notification called for by the respondents is improper. 3. In some cases, rejection was made on the ground that driving experience certificate was not enclosed by the petitioners along with their applications and in some cases, it has been alleged that the driving experience certificates which have been enclosed along with their applications are inadequate. 4. The senior counsels appearing in these matters and the counsels who are appearing for the petitioners have drawn by attention to the fact that the petitioners have produced relevant certificate required and the same from part of the typed set of papers, which have been filed in those cases along with writ petitions. As regard the rejection made on the ground that inadequate certificates have been enclosed by the petitioners, the counsels appearing for the petitioners have urged that since no format has been prescribed by the respondents, the application of the petitioners cannot be rejected on the ground that the certificates enclosed by them are inadequate. Had it been said that in particular format the certificate has to be enclosed, definitely the petitioners would have enclosed in that format. 5. Had it been said that in particular format the certificate has to be enclosed, definitely the petitioners would have enclosed in that format. 5. In some cases, it is alleged by the respondents that their applications did not reach in time. Admittedly, the last date for receipt of the applications was 23.05.2007 at 05.04 p.m. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that in some cases, the applications have been received only on 25. 2007 and hence their rejections made on that ground is perfectly valid. 7. Per contra, the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners, especially the petitioners in W.P.No.25201, 25336, 25401, 25406, 25430 and 25436 of 2007 have submitted that the petitioners have sent the applications by Speed Post on 22.05.2007 and it has reached the respondents the next day viz., 23.05.2007. Some of the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners further filed documents to show that the applications have reached the respondents on 23.05.2007. In W.P.No.25201 of 2007, it has been fairly admitted by the learned senior counsel that even though the application has been sent by the petitioner in that case on 22.05.2007, the same has reached only on 24.05.2007. But the learned senior counsel submitted that even though the application has been sent in time, due to the fault of the postal department, the same could not be dispatched to the respondents on 23.05.2007. Further, the learned senior counsel has drawn my attention to the Judgment in the case of Ahamed Nasar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in AIR 1999 Supreme Court 3897, wherein their lordships of the Supreme Court have held that delay in sending communication by one authority to other defended on account of postal authorities though communication was sent through speed post, could not be construed as callous, slack or causal disposition of representation. Finally, their lordships have held that there was no delay in consideration of representation. Thus, according to the learned senior counsel though the application has been sent on 22.05.2007, because of the postal delay, it could reach the respondents only on 24.05.2007, for which the petitioner cannot be blamed. 8. Finally, their lordships have held that there was no delay in consideration of representation. Thus, according to the learned senior counsel though the application has been sent on 22.05.2007, because of the postal delay, it could reach the respondents only on 24.05.2007, for which the petitioner cannot be blamed. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently contended that a) It is the duty of the petitioners to send the application from in time so as to reach the respondents on or before 23.05.2007 before 05.45 p.m. If it has not reached, the respondents cannot be blamed for the same. b) The notification specifically mentioned that the persons who are applying for the said post has to enclose experience certificate in driving Heavy Transport Vehicle for a period of not less than six months and experience of having worked for a period of not less than one year on vehicles fitted with petrol engines etc. The Writ petitioners in some of the cases have not enclosed the relevant certificates and hence their applications have been rightly rejected by the respondents. c) In some cases, according to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that adequate certificates have not been enclosed. 9. I have heard the learned senior counsels as well as the counsels appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents. 10. The petitioners have asserted in their affidavit that they have enclosed all the required particulars and the experience certificates along with their application. Further it has been submitted that since there is no prescribed format as regards experience certificate, they have enclosed the experience certificate and the rejection on the ground that adequate experience certificate has not been enclosed is totally erroneous. Further in some cases, it has been clearly pointed out by the counsels that the petitioners did infact have sent the applications on 22.05.2007 and did reached the respondents on 23.05.2007 itself. Further it has been pointed out by the learned senior counsel in one of the matter that though the application has been sent on 22.05.2007, in view of delay of the postal authorities, it has reached only on 24.05.2007, which cannot be put against the said petitioner. 11. Further it has been pointed out by the learned senior counsel in one of the matter that though the application has been sent on 22.05.2007, in view of delay of the postal authorities, it has reached only on 24.05.2007, which cannot be put against the said petitioner. 11. Whether the petitioners have really enclosed the required particulars or not, whether the experience certificates which have been filed by them is adequate or not, whether the applications filed by the petitioners have reached the office of the respondents before 23.05.2007 at 05.45 p.m. or not, have to be decided after the respondents files their counter in the main writ petitions. Now the contention of the petitioners and the rival contention that has been raised by the respondents cannot be decided at this stage. Moreover, the written examination has been fixed on 29.07.2007 at 10.00 a.m. Taking into consideration the said fact, all the petitioners shall be permitted by the respondents to appear for the examination to be held on 29.07.2007. Otherwise in the event of success by the petitioners and in the event of the respondents filling up the post, without permitting the petitioners to appear for the examination, it will cause great hardship to the petitioners. No prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the petitioners are permitted to write the examination on 29.07.2007. Hence, I am constrained to direct the respondents to allow all the petitioners in these writ petitions to appear for the examination to be held on 29.07.2007. The respondents after permitting the petitioners and others to sit for the examination, shall not publish the result until further orders from this Court. The respondents are directed to hand over the hall tickets to the respective petitioners on 28.07.2007 from 11.00 a.m. to 04.00 p.m. in the office of the second respondent. If the petitioners fail to receive the said hall tickets on 28.07.2007 between 11.00 a.m. and 4.00 p.m., they are not entitled to appear for the examination to be held on 29.07.2007. The respondents shall not insist for the orders passed in these matters. This order is subject to the result of the writ petition. 12. The respondents are directed to file counter within three weeks from this date. Post these matters on 17.08.2007.