Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3834 (ALL)

Dadhibal Prasad Verma v. State of U. P.

2014-12-23

ANIL KUMAR

body2014
JUDGMENT Anil Kumar,J.: - Heard Shri Ram Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel and perused the record. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the controversy involved int the present case is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court dated 30.10.2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 3509 (SS) of 2014 and other connected matters " which reproduction reads as under : - "Heard Sarv Sri Vidhu Bhushan Kalia, Dinesh Chandra Singh, Dharmendra Kumar Tripathi, Rajendra Prasad Shukla, Suresh Chandra Tiwari, G.N. Pandey, Pankaj Verma, Kripa Shankar Yadav, Virendra Prasad, Dharmendra Kumar Tripathi and Ankit Pande, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and the learned standing counsel. As the controversy involved in the instant writ petition, is similar to that of, other petitions of this bunch, therefore, this bunch of writ petitions is being decided by a common judgment and order. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of petitioners, today in court, be placed on record. By means of the bunch of writ petitions the petitioners are seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioners to participate in the ongoing counselling for the post of Pharmacists(Ayurvedic) after accepting the application forms of the petitioners. Submission of learned counsel for petitioners is that the petitioners in pursuance to the advertisement issued in the month of May, 2014 applied for the post of Pharmacists(Ayurvedic) on the prescribed format of application form through registered post, well within time. Further submission of learned counsel for petitioners is that due to lapse on the part of the postal department, the application forms of the petitioners could not be delivered by the last date prescribed for submission of application forms and similarly the form of petitioner no.1 which was sent through registered post on 06.05.2014 was misplaced by the postal department as is evident from the certificate issued by the Chief Post Master GPO, Lucknow on 12.07.2014 to the petitioners and because of non receipt of the application forms of the petitioners before the last date of submission of application forms, due to fault of the postal department, their application forms were not accepted by the concerned department and, thus, the petitioners were not allowed to participate in the counselling. Further submission of learned counsel for petitioners is that the present controversy was examined by this Court in Special Appeal Defective No. 585 of 2014 (Rajnish Kumar Pandey and others vs. State of U.P. and others) wherein the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.10.2014, issued directions to the concerned respondents to consider the claim of the appellants, if their applications have been delivered prior to the last date of receipt of application forms i.e. 15.06.2014 but the same was delivered on wrong address. The Court further issued direction that in the event, if the appellants are able to establish by getting of any certificate from the Department of Post and Telegraph that there envelops had also been delivered prior to the cut off date, in the same manner, as in the case of other appellants, apart from those mentioned above, would also be entitled to the same benefit under this judgment. In this back-ground submission of learned counsel for petitioners is that the petitioner's case is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench and thus, the petitioners are entitled to the same benefits as have been extended to the appellants of the aforesaid Special Appeal Defective No. 585 of 2014. Learned standing counsel has no objection to the innocuous prayer made by the learned counsel for petitioners. In view of the above, this bunch of writ petitions is being disposed of in terms of the judgment and order dated 08.10.2014 passed in Special Appeal Defective No. 585 of 2014 (Rajnish Kumar Pandey and others vs. State of U.P. and others) with a further direction that the benefit of the order passed in the Special Appeal Defective No. 585 of 2014 (Rajnish Kumar Pandey and others vs. State of U.P. and others), will also be extended to the petitioners of this bunch of writ petitions. Subject to aforesaid directions, all the writ petitions, are disposed of accordingly." 3. Accordingly, he requests that the same benefit may be given to the present petitioners also. 4. Learned State Counsel has no objection to the above said prayer. 5. In view of the above said facts, petitioners are also entitled for the benefit as given by this Court by order dated 30.10.2014 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.3509 (SS) of 2014 and other connected matters. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of.