JUDGMENT Hon’ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J.—The present petition has been filed with a prayer that the respondents should be directed to accept the print out of the application along with the required documents which were submitted by the petitioner online pursuant to Advertisement dated 7 February 2014 published by the U.P. Public Service Commission (the Commission) for selecting suitable candidates for the post of Lecturers in various subjects in the department of State Education Research and Training Council, Uttar Pradesh. 2. As per the advertisement, the last date for submitting the applications online was 11 March 2014. The last date for submission of the print out copies of the application so submitted online as well as certificates of the qualifications and other documents, was mentioned as 21 March 2014 by 5.00 P.M. 3. It has been stated that the petitioner submitted her application online on 5 March 2014 for the post of Lecturer (Home Science) shown at serial No. 20 in Department No. S-4/20. The petitioner sent her application along with the required documents by Speed Post on 14 March 2014 to the office of the Commission but the Commission did not receive the application of the petitioner and returned the same. 4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Speed Post was sent by the petitioner within the stipulated time, and so the Commission was not justified in not accepting it even it was delivered by the post office after the last date i.e. 21 March 2014 fixed for receiving the hard copy of the application along with other relevant certificates and documents. It has been further asserted that since the Commission has not commenced the interviews and there is no fault on the part of the petitioner in submitting the print out of her application with the relevant certificates and documents, a direction should be issued to the Commission to accept the documents. In this connection learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not responsible for any delay on the part of the Postal Department in delivering the letter in time and since the application was received by the Postal Department on behalf of the Commission, the Commission is under an obligation to treat the application as having been submitted within time. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the Commission has, however, drawn the attention of the Court to the very first paragraph of the advertisement dated 7 February 2014 which clearly stipulates that the candidates can submit the supporting documents either personally or by speed post / registered post by 5 P.M. on 21 March 2014, and on failure to do so, the application submitted online shall be treated as rejected. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the Commission that three modes of service are provided for submission of the print out/hard copies of the relevant documents including the application and, in case, the Commission does not receive the documents within the stipulated time limit, the same cannot be accepted. In this connection learned counsel for the Commission has placed reliance on a decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Neena Chaturvedi v. Public Service Commission, U.P. Allahabad, 2009(9) ADJ 152 (FB). 6. We have considered the submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties. 7. The advertisement provides that the applicant, after submitting the application online should submit the print out of the online application with the educational certificates and other relevant documents personally or by Speed Post/Registered Post on any working day by 21 March 2014 up to 5.00 P.M. It has also been clearly specified in the advertisement that in case the documents are not received in the office of the Commission by the stipulated date and time, the online submission of the application will be treated as cancelled. The relevant portion of the advertisement is as follows : vkWu&ykbu vkosnu djus ds mijkUr vH;FkhZx.k vku&ykbu vkosnu dks fizUV&vkmV ds lkFk vkWu&ykbu vkosnu esa fd, x;s nkoksa ds leFkZu es leLr 'kSf{kd@okafNr vfHkys[kksa dh Lo&izekf.kr Nk;k izfr;kW Lo;a@LihMiksLV@iathd`r Mkd ls fdlh Hkh dk;Zfnol es fdUrq foyEcre fnukad 21 ekpZ] 2014 lk;a 5-00 cts rd vk;ksx dk;kZy; esa izkIr djk;k tkuk lqfuf'pr djsaA bl iz;kstu gsrq irs dh iphZ vk;ksx dh osclkbV ls MkmuyksM dj vfHkys[k iszf”kr djus okys fyQkQs ij pLik dj vk;ksx dk;kZy; dks izsf"kr djuk lqfuf'pr djsA mDr frfFk rd okafNr vfHkys[kksa ds vk;ksx esa izkIr u gksus dh n'kk esa vH;FkhZ }kjk fd;k x;k vkWu&ykbu vkosnu fujLr le>k tk,xkA vko';d lwpuk%& mijksDRk izfdz;k dk vuqikyu vkWu&ykbu vkosnu djus ds mijkUr fd, x;s nkos ds leFkZu esa vHk;FkhZx.k leLr 'kSf{kd@okafNr vfHkys[kksa dks fdlh Hkh dk;Zfnol esa vk;ksx dk;kZy; es foyEcre fnukad 21 ekpZ] 2014 lk;a 5-00 cts rd izsf”kr@tek dj ldrs gSA 8. The Full Bench of this Court in Neena Chaturvedi (supra) has observed that the post office cannot be treated as an agent of the Commission in such matters and dispatch through postal service does not amount to acceptance of application sent by the petitioner. Paragraphs 5 and 39 of the aforesaid decision of the Full Bench in Neena Chaturvedi’s case (supra) are quoted herein under: 5. The question that can be formulated for consideration would be “when applications are invited, one through post office and the other by any other means or only through post, does the post office become the agent of the addressee, because there is express or implied authorisation by the addressee to send the articles by post. 39. The question that can be formulated for consideration would be “when applications are invited, one through post office and the other by any other means or only through post, does the post office become the agent of the addressee, because there is express or implied authorisation by the addressee to send the articles by post. 39. If applications are invited by addressee for an interview or recruitment from eligible members from the general public, by advertisement either expressly by one mode or more, one of which is post office, when an applicant chooses to send his application through post, though the letter is posted in time but delivered late after last date of receipt, the question that arises for consideration is : “On an offer being made by advertisement, and an acceptance is sent by post, when does the acceptance become complete, on the date of receipt of the acceptance in the post office or its receipt by the addressee” On an advertisement being issued by the offeror inviting applications through post and the sender (applicant) sends application through post (acceptance) but the same does not reach by the date mentioned in the advertisement, will the postal rule apply? The offeror in such cases, apart from inviting applications also lays down as one of its terms, that applications have to be received by a particular date. The offer therefore made if any, is receipt of the application through the post by a particular date. The postal rule however applies, the moment an acceptance is posted through post, then the post office becomes the agent of the addressee (offeror). An advertisement inviting applications for examination or recruitment is merely an invitation to offer and not an offer itself. The person who sends his application by post or by any other mode assuming it is based on an offer, must send the acceptance by the particular date, in terms of offer. If it does not reach by that date, there can be no acceptance and the postal rule would not apply. 9. In view of the aforesaid, the postal authority cannot be treated as an agent of the Commission so as to treat the dispatch of the application before the last date by post, as having been submitted before the last date. 9. In view of the aforesaid, the postal authority cannot be treated as an agent of the Commission so as to treat the dispatch of the application before the last date by post, as having been submitted before the last date. This apart, it was clearly provided in the advertisement that the print out of the online application with the other relevant documents could also be submitted personally which facility could have been availed of by the petitioner but admittedly was not availed of. 10. The reliefs prayed for cannot, therefore, be granted to the petitioner. 11. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. —————