JUDGMENT : The facts are sufficiently recorded in the order of February 3, 2016, but some salient features require repetition. 2. The petitioner applied for a post under the West Bengal Power Development Corporation Limited pursuant to an advertisement issued on March 18, 2013. The grievance of the petitioner is that the notice dated October 28, 2015 for the interview convened to be held on November 19, 2015 was received by the petitioner on December 22, 2015 long after the interview had been concluded. The first respondent Corporation has produced copy records to demonstrate that the notice to the petitioner was issued on the date referred to therein and the same posted on October 29, 2015. 3. The Corporation also represented on January 25, 2016 when the petition was taken up in right earnest for the first time that the panel of successful candidates had already been prepared and the letters of appointment issued and posts filled up. On January 25, 2016, the Post Master General was directed to file a report “after completing a thorough inquiry as to how a postal article takes more than forty days to reach from ICH Sainthia to Rampurhat H. O.” 4. The order required the report to identify the persons responsible for the delay so that appropriate proceedings could ultimately be instituted against such persons and such persons made liable to compensate the petitioner for the petitioner failing to attend the interview. 5. Pursuant to such order, a report was filed by the Directorate of Postal Services, Kolkata Region dated January 28, 2016 as the Post Master General, Kolkata Region was said to be on tour. The report revealed that a bag containing postal articles numbered as BBW0016297099 was apparently left behind “under the table of Speed Branch” and it was not discovered prior to December 22, 2015 whereupon it was immediately opened and the articles were delivered to the addressees. The report indicated that the relevant bag had been accidentally misplaced without there being any mala fide intention on anybody’s part. Certain persons were also named in the report. 6. The report was noticed in the order of February 23, 2016 which called for affidavits to be filed. The report indicated that the relevant bag had been accidentally misplaced without there being any mala fide intention on anybody’s part. Certain persons were also named in the report. 6. The report was noticed in the order of February 23, 2016 which called for affidavits to be filed. The said order also observed as follows:- “The postal department seems to think that since the exercise of assessment of damages may not be appropriately conducted in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, there is sufficient room to wriggle out of the liability. Implicit in the submission on behalf of the postal department is that these minor matters do not require to be taken note of or the postal department cannot be made accountable for the inconvenience or damage caused to the petitioner. The smugness on the part of the public servants that they cannot be removed from service or otherwise penalised unless caught red-handed, has to be dispelled. Into the 70th year of independence of the country, a culture must be developed where public servants are accountable to ordinary citizens and do not behave like the rulers who left the country or were forced to leave in 1947. The postal department is put on notice that damages as due to the petitioner will be assessed in course of the present proceedings for the colossal act of negligence on its part which resulted in the petitioner losing out on an opportunity of obtaining an employment.” 7. The postal department claims that since the postal article was delivered late because a bag had been accidentally misplaced and there was neither any deliberate omission on the part of the postal authorities to deliver the postal article nor any mala fides on the part of any employee to cause the delay, no damages can be awarded against the postal department as the postal department had no knowledge of the contents of the post article addressed to the petitioner. The postal department also says that appropriate proceedings have been instituted against the concerned persons, though the petitioner says that the postal department is merely going through the motions in view of the order of court and only the minor punishment provisions have been invoked against the delinquent employees. 8. There is an element of laxity in State functioning and the tardiness is evident in almost in every institution without fail. 8. There is an element of laxity in State functioning and the tardiness is evident in almost in every institution without fail. The adherence to time, cleanliness in work and a sense of ownership are, clearly, not hallmarks of a public servant in India, barring the honourable exceptions which come few and far between. Most importantly, there does not appear to be any element of accountability and the ready excuse is that the requisite infrastructure or manpower is not available for any service to be meaningfully rendered. 9. It is best to begin with the court system where a litigant who enters by choice has no idea when he would be finished. Citizens have come to accept that things done properly or in time by public servants are the exception and not the general rule. Courts have also been needlessly charitable in overlooking mistakes and tardiness and not fostering a culture of costs where a successful cause would result in commensurate costs so that the next litigant in line is not scared away by the time, effort and money required to be spent in the system. In short, it is typical of public institutions in the country to compromise on values and accountability and rest on the Indian psyche of “adjustment.” 10. It is necessary that an element of accountability is injected into what the critics describe as a moribund postal system, that appears to revel in its increased irrevalance in the present age of instant communication. The postal department remains relevant only to the extent that the virtual has not completely replaced the actual. 11. In this case, the petitioner wanted to obtain a better employment and the petitioner got a chance of being short-listed for selection upon the petitioner being called for the interview. However, the sheer negligence on the part of the postal authorities prevented the petitioner from attending the interview. It must also be appreciated that the petitioner may not have been selected for the post if the petitioner had attended the interview. However, if the postal article had been delivered to the petitioner in time, the petitioner would have been relieved of wondering what might have been. 12. It must also be appreciated that the petitioner may not have been selected for the post if the petitioner had attended the interview. However, if the postal article had been delivered to the petitioner in time, the petitioner would have been relieved of wondering what might have been. 12. In this extraordinary jurisdiction, the exact assessment of damages cannot be made primarily since matters are decided on affidavit evidence though the wide authority under Article 226 of the Constitution does not restrict proceedings for damages to nominal awards. It is only the practice followed over the decades that inhibits the court from trying a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution as a claim in a suit. 13. There is no doubt that the petitioner has suffered loss and damage on account of the deficiency in service on the part of the postal department. Notwithstanding the petitioner not having availed of the services of the postal department - the letter was posted by the first respondent Corporation - since the petitioner has been seriously prejudiced by the conduct of the postal department, the petitioner is found entitled to nominal damages assessed at Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the postal department to the petitioner within four weeks from date together with interest at the rate of eight per cent annum if paid beyond four weeks from date. The petitioner is also left free to sue the postal department for actual damages. If such a suit is filed within eight months from date, the decree that may be obtained by the petitioner therein will stand reduced by the principal amount of payment made pursuant to this order. If such suit is not decreed in favour of the petitioner or to the extent covering the principal monetary value of this order, the petitioner will be under no obligation to refund any payment received pursuant to this order to the postal department. 14. WP 477 (W) of 2016 is disposed of without any order as to costs. 15. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.