Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 378 (MP)

Pranav Dongre v. State of M. P.

2016-05-05

R.S.JHA

body2016
ORDER 1. As both the aforesaid petitions involve similar and identical issues, they are heard and decided together concomitantly. 2. The petitioners have filed these petitions praying for a direction to the respondent/Public Service Commission to accept the documents submitted by them with a further direction to permit them to appear in the interview process scheduled for the post of Ayurvedic Medical Officer. 3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the petitioners have applied for being considered for appointment on the posts of Ayurvedic Medical Officers pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent/PSC on 23.9.2013. Undipsutedly, the petitioners were successful in the written examination and therefore, the respondent/PSC had issued a letter dated 8.6.2015 informing the petitioners that the petitioners should submit all necessary documents and certificates before the concerned authority latest by 29.6.2015 through post or personally so that they may be called for further interview in case they are found qualified after verification of the documents. 4. According to the assertions of the petitioners, they had sent their documents to the respondent/PSC by post on 17.6.2015 from Gondiya. It is also undisputed that the documents were delivered to the respondent/PSC on 1.7.2017 two days after the cut off date of 29.6.2015 and therefore the respondent/PSC did not call the petitioners for personal interview. 5. The petitioners being aggrieved, have filed the present petitions stating that the delay in transmitting the documents occurred on account of the delay by the Indian Postal Department and to substantiate the aforesaid assertion, the petitioners have filed Annexure P-4 which is the tracking record of the postal department, a perusal of which indicates that the petitioners booked the item on 17.6.2015 from Gondiya which was dispatched for Mumbai and thereafter to Indore and was ultimately delivered to the respondent/PSC on 1.7.2015. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they had dispatched the documents diligently 13 days before the cut off date but the same was delivered after undue delay by the postal department after the cut off date for which the petitioners cannot be penalized as the delay was beyond the control of the petitioners. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they had dispatched the documents diligently 13 days before the cut off date but the same was delivered after undue delay by the postal department after the cut off date for which the petitioners cannot be penalized as the delay was beyond the control of the petitioners. It is further submitted that the petitioners were vigilant and had processed their documents 13 days prior to the cut off date and in such circumstances, in case the procedure prescribed by the respondent/PSC is strictly adopted, it would cause undue hardship to the petitioners and therefore the respondent/PSC be directed to permit the petitioners to participate in the interview process. 7. The respondent/PSC has filed a return and has stated that the procedure for interview is prescribed in paragraph 8 of the instructions issued by the PSC for filling up on-line forms and that specific detailed instructions were also informed by them to the petitioners in their call letter dated 8.6.2015 which was received by the petitioners. It is stated that the petitioners were clearly informed that the documents should reach the authorities before the cut-off date of 29.6.2015 and in case the documents did not reach the authorities before the cut-off date, the candidature of the applicant would be treated as cancelled automatically and in such cases the excuse of mistake or delay on the part of the postal department shall not be accepted. It is submitted that the aforesaid legal position is clearly established from a conjoint reading of paragraph 8 of the instructions as well as paragraphs 2, 4 and 5 of the interview call letter, dated 8.6.2015, Annexure P-2. The learned counsel for the respondent/PSC submits that in view of the aforesaid specific and clear stipulations, the petitions filed by the petitioners deserve to be dismissed. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The learned counsel for the respondent/PSC submits that in view of the aforesaid specific and clear stipulations, the petitions filed by the petitioners deserve to be dismissed. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. From a perusal of the conditions/stipulations contained in paragraph 8 of the instructions for filling up on-line forms and paragraphs 2, 4 and 5 of the interview call letter dated 8.6.2015 the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent/PSC appears to be correct to the effect that the authorities in the aforesaid instructions had clearly notified even prior to the holding of the examinations that the candidate concerned on being selected in the written test, would be required to produce the necessary documents and certificates before the authority concerned latest by 29.6.2015 failing which the candidature of the candidate would be automatically treated as cancelled. Clauses 4 and 5 of the interview call letter dated 8.6.2015 also stipulates and makes it clear that the authorities had specifically notified and informed the petitioners before hand that in case of default, the candidate would not be permitted to participate in the interview process and the excuse of delay on the part of the Postal Department or for any other reason would not be tenable or acceptable. 9. It is an undisputed fact that the respondent/PSC conducts examinations in which desirous candidates participate and therefore, for the purpose of transparency, the entire procedure containing stipulations regarding written examination the interview and the necessary cut-off dates are pre-notified and informed to each and every candidate who is desirous of participating in the selection process. In the instant case, it is further clear that the respondent/PSC had individually informed the petitioners by issuing the letter dated 8.6.2015 that they were required to produce the documents and certificates before the authority latest by 29.6.2015 either through post or by hand or any other means and therefore, it is clear that the petitioners had been informed by the respondent/PSC that they were free to and could adopt any means or mode of transmission but were required to ensure that the documents reach the authorities before the cut off date of 29.6.2016 and the mode of transmission of document was not restricted or confined only to the utilization of the Indian Postal Service. It is also apparent that on the basis of their past experience, the respondent/PSC had also clearly specified that any excuse on the ground of postal delay or any other reason or cause would not be entertained and in case the documents did not reach the authority concerned before the cut-off date, the candidature of the applicant would be automatically treated as cancelled. 10. From the aforesaid analysis it is luminescently clear that the respondent/PSC has prescribed and followed a transparent procedure which is pre-notified to every candidate with a view to eliminate any arbitrariness or the possibility of extending any preference or benefit to any individual candidate and the stipulations regarding cut off date and non consideration of excuse of postal delay etc. have also been specifically provided and prescribed for achieving this object of eliminating the chance of giving benefit to a particular individual and depriving others of the same. 11. It is also observed that the process of selection undertaken by the respondents is a tedious one, which requires time and meticulous scrutiny and therefore,specific and clear dates for doing particular acts like filing of applications and documents and for conducting examinations, interviews etc., are specified only for the purpose of ensuring that the entire selection process is transparent and fair and that equal opportunity and notice all those who participate in the selection process is given. 12. I am also of the considered opinion that for the aforesaid reasons this cut off date mentioned by the PSC in the instructions and call letter is final and binding on all concerned and should not generally be extended or relaxed in individual cases. If however the date is required to be extended for some justified reasons by the PSC itself, it may do so by a general order extending the date uniformly for all the candidates concerned. This is so because in case relaxation is granted or permitted in individual cases on selective basis without public notice and general relaxation, it would offend Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as it would deprive other candidates of participation, who for some reason have not been able to apply or comply with the stipulations before the cut off date and who may be more deserving and meritorious. I am inclined to say so, as the petitioner or any candidate for that matter has no indefensible, constitutional or statutory right to claim relaxation of the date only for himself except in exceptional cases of extreme hardship and injustice on account of reasons beyond the control of the candidate which may be granted by this Court in exercise of the discretion vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. Apart from the above, it goes without saying that grant of individual relaxation would also result in opening a flood gate thereby frustrating the entire selection process as well as depriving the PSC of sufficient and adequate time to scrutinize documents and applications of the vigilant and selected candidates thereby prejudicing the fairness of selection. Similar view has been taken by the Full Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Braj Kishore Prasad and etc. v. State of Bihar and others, reported in 1999(2) SLR 444. 14. As a result of the aforesaid analysis In the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the act of the respondent/PSC in treating the candidature of the petitioners to have been automatically cancelled and not considering their cases for the interview as well as not entertaining the petitioners’ representation in view of the specific stipulation made by them in paragraph 5 of the interview call letter dated 8.6.2015 cannot be found fault with and has to be upheld. 15. I now proceed to consider the case of the petitioners for grant of relaxation, as this Court has the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant relief in appropriate cases where this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners were prevented from justifiable cause beyond the control of the petitioners from filing the documents before the cut off date. 16. Before I advert to the aforesaid issue, it is pertinent to note that by an interim order dated 18.8.2015, the petitioners were permitted to participate in the interview process with a further stipulation that their results shall not be declared. The respondents have stated that pursuant to the orders passed by this Court the petitioners have been permitted to participate in the interview and the result thereof has been produced before this Court in a sealed cover. 17. The respondents have stated that pursuant to the orders passed by this Court the petitioners have been permitted to participate in the interview and the result thereof has been produced before this Court in a sealed cover. 17. It is also observed that in the instant case, the petitioners were vigilant in dispatching their documents as the same were processed 13 days prior to the cut off date before the respondent/PSC. A perusal of the track record of the said item which is filed by the petitioners as Annexure P-4 indicates that the item was transferred from Gondiya to Nagpur on 18.6.2015 and was thereafter dispatched for Bombay on the same date i.e. 18.6.2015 but the track record does not indicate as to what happened to the said item between 18.6.2015 to 29.6.2016 and as to why the item had taken 10 days’ time to reach Mumbai from Nagpur. The track record further indicates that the envelope in question was transferred from Mumbai to Indore on 29.6.2015. The envelope reached Indore on 29.6.2015 itself and was delivered on 1.7.2015. 18. In the circumstances I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners have been victim of gross negligence on the part of the postal department and that the petitioners had themselves been vigilant in processing the matter as they had dispatched the documents 13 days prior to the cut-off date. Had the petitioners dispatched the documents within 7 or 10 days before the cut off date, the situation would have been different and I would have been constrained to take a different view. However, in the instant case it has to be held that the petitioners were vigilant as they had dispatched the envelopes 13 days prior to the cut off date and, as the document Annexure P-4 filed by the petitioners clearly indicates, that the postal department misplaced the documents for a long period of 10 days between 18.6.2015 to 29.6.2015 which resulted in the delay. 19. When this fact is read coupled with the fact that the petitioners were vigilant and have also been permitted to participate in the interview process by an interim order, a peculiar fact situation arises in the present case which needs consideration. 19. When this fact is read coupled with the fact that the petitioners were vigilant and have also been permitted to participate in the interview process by an interim order, a peculiar fact situation arises in the present case which needs consideration. One of the mitigating and compelling factors that arises in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioners is that in the instant case, in case this Court directs consideration of the cases of the petitioners the selection process undertaken by the PSC shall not be delayed or stagnated as the process for interview is going on and that none of the candidates would be prejudiced or adversely effected. 20. In view of the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case as a one time measure, I am constrained to direct the respondent PSC to declare the result of the petitioners as the petitioners were permitted to participate in the interview process on account of an interim order passed by this Court and thereafter consider the cases of the petitioners for appointment on the post of Ayurvedi Medical Officers in case the petitioners are successful and are otherwise eligible in accordance with the rules. 21. It is further clarified and specified that as I have held the process adopted by the respondent/PSC and their action to be just and proper but have granted relief to the petitioners in the peculiar and exceptional circumstances prevailing in the instant case, the decision in this case shall be confined to this case and shall not be cited or treated as a precedent for any purpose or in any other case in future. 22. With the aforesaid directions, the petitions filed by the petitioners stand disposed of. 23. A copy of this order be placed in the record of Writ Petition No. 12340/2010.