Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 662 (UTT)

Sagar Bhatt v. State of Uttarakhand

2012-10-17

V.K.BIST

body2012
Judgment : V.K. Bist, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 21.08.2012 passed by the Principal, District Institution of Education and Training (DIET), Lohaghat, district Champawat, by which the petitioner has been informed that since his application did not reach in the concerned DIET before the last date of submission of application form, he cannot be permitted to appear in the counseling. 3. On 15.12.2011, an advertisement was issued by the Director, Primary Education, Uttarakhand, asking application from the eligible candidates for the posts of Trainee Teacher. In the advertisement, last date of submission of application form was given 25.12.2011. It was provided in the advertisement that application form can be submitted in the office of concerned DIET either by registered post/speed post, or by hand. In pursuance of the said advertisement, the petitioner sent his application form through speed post on 19.12.2011 from the Post Office, Haldwani. Since same did not return, the petitioner was under the impression that his application form must have been received by the respondents before the last date. When the list of eligible candidates for counseling was issued by the DIET, Lohaghat, district Champawat and the petitioner did not find his name in the said list, he enquired and was informed by the Principal, DIET, Lohaghat, district Champawat that since his application form did not reach in time, he is not being called for counseling. On this, the petitioner submitted an application under the Right to Information Act before the Chief Public Information Officer (C.P.I.O.)/Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Nainital. On 09.08.2012, the C.P.I.O./Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Nainital informed the petitioner that speed post letter no. EV290003290IN, dated 19.12.2011, addressed to DIET, Lohaghat, was sent to Almora Speed Post Hub on 20.12.2011. By the said letter, the petitioner was informed to gather further information from the Superintendent, Almora Post Division. Thereafter, the petitioner asked information from the Superintendent of Post Office, Almora Division, who informed the petitioner on 31.08.2012/03.09.2012 that the said article was sent to Pithoragarh on 24.12.2011. By the said letter, the petitioner was informed to gather further information from the Superintendent, Almora Post Division. Thereafter, the petitioner asked information from the Superintendent of Post Office, Almora Division, who informed the petitioner on 31.08.2012/03.09.2012 that the said article was sent to Pithoragarh on 24.12.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner also inquired from the C.P.I.O./Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Pithoragarh Division, who informed the petitioner that speed post sent by him was received on 26.12.2011 and on the same day, it was sent for delivery to DIET, Lohaghat, but DIET, Lohaghat refused to accept the same and due to this reason, same was returned back to the sender. Thereafter, the petitioner also approached the Post Master, Nainital, asking him the status of his speed post letter, but no information was supplied to him. Hence, this petition has been filed by the petitioner. 4. The case of the respondent nos.1, 2 & 3 is that since the application form of the petitioner did not reach in time and the same was returned back to the petitioner, the candidature of the petitioner cannot be considered for the post of Trainee Teacher and the petitioner cannot be called for the counseling. 5. In this petition, no interim order was granted in favour of the petitioner, as he approached this Court at a belated stage. I have been informed that process of selection is complete, therefore, the prayer made by the petitioner in the present writ petition for a direction to the respondent no.3 to accept the application form of the petitioner for the selection of Trainee Teacher in Primary Schools of Uttarakhand and conduct fresh counseling cannot be accepted and is rejected. But considering the fact that due to the mistake committed by the respondents, the petitioner has been deprived from his legal right for being considered for the post of Trainee Teacher, I asked the Postal Department as well as the Education Department to file their counter affidavit. The respondent nos.2 & 3 filed counter affidavit. In their counter affidavit, it is submitted that the last cut off date for submission of application form was 25.12.2011 and since the application form of the petitioner was not received within the stipulated time, therefore, the candidature of the petitioner could not be considered. The respondent nos.2 & 3 filed counter affidavit. In their counter affidavit, it is submitted that the last cut off date for submission of application form was 25.12.2011 and since the application form of the petitioner was not received within the stipulated time, therefore, the candidature of the petitioner could not be considered. The Postal Department was also asked by this Court to file counter affidavit and to inform the Court that whether the speed post of the petitioner was ever returned to the petitioner. The Postal Department filed supplementary counter affidavit, in which it is submitted that the Postmaster Haldwani, Head Post Office has informed to the office of Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Nainital that the speed post letter no.EV290003290IN, dated 19.12.2011, was received by Haldwani Head Post Office on 28.12.2011 via Moradabad RMS registered list, but the said speed post was not delivered to the sender i.e. to Shri Sagar Bhatt and has been lost from the Haldwani Head Post Office. 6. I have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. The advertisement issued by the Director, Primary Education, Uttarakhand was defective as last date for submission of application form was kept 25.12.2011, which was a national holiday being Christmas. The same was also Sunday. Thus, it was not possible for any candidate including the petitioner to submit application form in the office of the concerned DIET on that day. It was also not mentioned in the advertisement that though 25th December was holiday, but concerned DIET will accept application form on that day. It was also not mentioned in the advertisement that Postal Department will deliver post on 25.12.2011. In view of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, it was the duty of the respondents to accept the application form on 26.12.2011, as 25.12.2011 was holiday. 7. Shri H.M. Raturi, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State/respondent nos.1 to 3 informed the Court that the Education Department also requested the Postal Department to deliver the post to the addressee on 25.12.2011. But, in support of this submission nothing was brought on record. Moreover, this could not be done as 25th December was a holiday and the Postal Department of the Central Government cannot be asked by the Education Department of the State to keep post office open on national holiday. But, in support of this submission nothing was brought on record. Moreover, this could not be done as 25th December was a holiday and the Postal Department of the Central Government cannot be asked by the Education Department of the State to keep post office open on national holiday. Therefore, it is held that respondent nos.1, 2 & 3 erred in declining to accept the speed post/application form of the petitioner on 26.12.2011. They are fully responsible for the loss suffered by the petitioner. I am informed that this was onetime opportunity given to the B.Ed. degree holders to apply for the post of Primary Teacher/Trainee Teacher. 8. Learned Standing Counsel for the Postal Department referred Section 6 of the Indian Postal Act, which provides exemption from liability of loss, misdelivery, delay or damage of the postal article. Same is being reproduced below:- “6. Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage.- The [Government] shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery or delay of, or damage to, any postal article in course of transmission by post, except in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Government as hereinafter provided; and no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default.” By referring the above section, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.4 and 5 submitted that respondent nos.4 & 5 are not responsible for the loss of speed post sent by the petitioner. 9. In the present case, when the speed post was lost, it was the duty of the Postal Department to inform the petitioner that his article has been lost. It sat quiet and did not inform the petitioner. When this Court asked the Standing Counsel appearing for the Postal Department about the status of article of the petitioner, then only respondent no.4 filed supplementary counter affidavit and informed the Court that speed post has been lost. In such circumstances, the Postal Department is not entitled for the benefit of Section 6 of the Indian Postal Act. In my view, the Postal Department is also fully responsible for the loss suffered by the petitioner. They did not think it proper to inform the petitioner about the loss of the speed post. In such circumstances, the Postal Department is not entitled for the benefit of Section 6 of the Indian Postal Act. In my view, the Postal Department is also fully responsible for the loss suffered by the petitioner. They did not think it proper to inform the petitioner about the loss of the speed post. Had it been done, the petitioner could have approached this Court earlier and would have got interim order as was granted to various other candidates whose application forms were returned on 26.12.2011. The conclusion is that all the respondents acted in most irresponsible and careless manner and due to their action/inaction, the petitioner lost an opportunity of employment. Government departments are expected to act in responsible manner. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, I impose heavy cost of ` 1,00,000/- on respondent nos.1 to 3 and direct them to pay the same to the petitioner, as compensation for the loss suffered by him. I also impose a heavy cost of 1,00,000/- on the respondent no.4 and direct him to pay a sum of ` 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the petitioner as compensation for the said loss. Cost shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of six months. 11. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. Interim relief application (CLMA No.10497/2012) also stands disposed of.