Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 603 (ALL)

Setu Singh v. Union of India

2019-03-06

PANKAJ MITHAL, SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri N.L. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G.N. Kanaujiya for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 and Sri Nishith Yadav for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 2. The petitioner who is a candidate for the U.P. Judicial Services Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination has preferred this writ petition for a direction upon the respondents No. 4 and 5 i.e. U.P. Public Service Commission to accept her application form for the main examination and to declare her result. 3. The petitioner in pursuance to the advertisement published by the U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad (in short Commission) applied for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). She qualified the preliminary examination and filled up the online application for the main examination. On the basis of the online application, the petitioner was issued admit card for the main examination and she appeared therein but the result is awaited. 4. In addition to filling up the application form online, the petitioner was required to submit a hard copy of the application along with the necessary documents and the last date notified for submission of the same before the Commission was 28.01.2019. The petitioner sent the application form and the documents to the Commission vide speed-post on 18.01.2019 from Hapur. The Commission informed the petitioner that it received her application form and documents by post at around 11.00 O'clock on 29.01.2019 i.e. beyond the time prescribed for submitting the same. 5. It is in view of the above fact that the petitioner apprehending that her candidature would stand rejected that she has filed the present writ petition for a direction to the respondents No. 4 and 5 to accept her application form (hard copy) for the main examination and to declare her result. 6. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had dispatched her application form and the necessary documents by speed-post well within time i.e. on 18.01.2019 expecting that it will reach the Commission within 2-3 days i.e. much before the last date of submission which was 28.01.2019. The delay, if any, in delivery of the application form and the documents of the petitioner is not attributable to her but to the Postal Department for which she cannot be penalised by rejecting her candidature. 7. The delay, if any, in delivery of the application form and the documents of the petitioner is not attributable to her but to the Postal Department for which she cannot be penalised by rejecting her candidature. 7. Sri Suvendu Swain, Postmaster General, Post-Office, Allahabad (Prayagraj) has filed his affidavit stating that the speed-post EU308431764IN (SPA) of the petitioner was booked at Sub Post-Office, Railway Road, Hapur on 18.01.2019. It was consigned to the National Sorting Hub (NSH), Ghaziabad for onward disposal on the same day. Thereafter, it was received by the NSH Ghaziabad on 27.01.2019 and was consigned to the NSH Allahabad on 28.01.2019. It was received at Allahabad on the same day and was delivered to the Post-Office, Public Service Commission on 29.01.2019. It was dispatched for delivery to the Commission on the same day. On the basis of the said averment, he has tried to justify that there was no delay or any negligence on the part of the Post-Office at Allahabad in handling the above speed-post. 8. The Post Master General in his affidavit further states that normally a speed-post is delivered within 1-4 days within the State and within 4-5 days in the rest of the country outside the State. 9. One another affidavit has been filed by the Post Master General on the direction of the Court wherein it has been indicated that normally speed-post is locally delivered within a day or two, from metro to metro within 1-3 days, State capital to State capital within 1-4 days, within the same State 1-4 days and rest of the Country within 4-5 days, meaning thereby in the normal course any article sent by the speed-post within the State is expected to be delivered within four days. 10. Thus, apparently there is huge delay on the part of the Post-Office in delivering the speed-post which was booked from Hapur on 18.01.2019 for its delivery within the State but was delivered on 29.01.2019. The said delay is not on the part of the petitioner, rather due to the inaction or delay on the part of the Postal Department. 11. The law is well settled that the Postal Department acts as an agent of the person who sends letter/article by any of the mode acceptable to the Postal Department. The said delay is not on the part of the petitioner, rather due to the inaction or delay on the part of the Postal Department. 11. The law is well settled that the Postal Department acts as an agent of the person who sends letter/article by any of the mode acceptable to the Postal Department. Therefore, the delay in delivering the article within time due to inaction of the Postal Department in effect would be due to lapses on the part of the agent of such a person for which the addressee cannot be held responsible in any manner. 12. A Full Bench of this Court in Neena Chaturvedi vs. Public Service Commission, 2010 (9) ADJ 152 held that where applications are invited for an interview or examination from the general public and the applicant chooses to send his application through post, even though the application/letter is posted in time but delivered late, after the last date, the Post-Office acts as an agent of the sender and the addressee is not bound to accept the post received after the last date. 13. Another Full Bench of this Court in Rajendra Patel vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2015 (8) ADJ 219 while dealing with a similar controversy pertaining to the recruitment examination conducted by the U.P. Public Service Commission, wherein the application form was sent to the Commission by speed-post on 16th October, 2014 but was delivered by the Postal Department on 31st October, 2014, after the last date notified for the purpose, the Court held that the Commission cannot be directed to declare the result when the application form of the candidate had not been received within the prescribed period. The Full Bench went on to hold as under: "We hold that where the Commission requires the submission of a hard copy of the online application together with all accompanying documents by a prescribed last date and has clearly placed the candidates on notice of the fact that an application which is submitted beyond the last date together with the prescribed documents would result in the invalidation of the candidature, the condition which has been imposed by the Commission would have to be scrupulously observed. It would not be open to the Court to hold that notwithstanding such a clear condition, an application which has not been received by the last date should be entertained." 14. It would not be open to the Court to hold that notwithstanding such a clear condition, an application which has not been received by the last date should be entertained." 14. In this context it is important to clarify that the conditions of the examination clearly provide that in case the application forms are not received within the time prescribed it would result in the cancellation of the candidature. Therefore, it was for the candidates to observe said the time schedule strictly. 15. It may also be pertinent to mention here that it was open for the petitioner to have sent the application form by post or to have delivered it personally. Therefore, if she had chosen the Postal Department she did it at her own risk and the Commission cannot be blamed for the delay or inaction on the part of her agent i.e. Post-Office. 16. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Court in exercise of its discretion cannot direct the Commission to accept her application form which was delivered beyond the time prescribed and to declare her result. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to any direction of the nature sought for by her. 17. Notwithstanding that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed by her, as the delay in delivering the speed-post is clearly attributable to the Post-Office which was her agent, affecting her career, irrespective of the fact that the petitioner can claim damages for the loss suffered by her, we are constrained to saddle the Postal Department with exemplary cost of Rs. 25,000/- only to compensate her cost for litigation. The cost shall be paid to the petitioner within two weeks by office of the Chief Post Master General, Lucknow and the Post Master General, Allahabad is directed to communicate this order to him. 18. The Chief Post Master General, Lucknow is directed to inform the Court about the payment of the cost within a period of one month through the affidavit of some responsible officer. 19. The terms and conditions of booking a letter/article by speed-post, in the case of inordinate delay in delivering the post, provides for payment of compensation equivalent to twice the cost of booking or Rs. 1000/- whichever is less. 19. The terms and conditions of booking a letter/article by speed-post, in the case of inordinate delay in delivering the post, provides for payment of compensation equivalent to twice the cost of booking or Rs. 1000/- whichever is less. This is ex-facie inadequate and is actually not a compensation to make good the loss, if any, suffered by the person sending the speed-post. The said person, in such a situation is legally entitled to sue the Postal Department for the damages suffered and to claim compensation. This by itself, in such cases, would not only result in litigation and put the Postal Department to defend itself but would, at the same time, burden the Courts, that are already chocked, with additional litigation. 20. In order to avoid this kind of situation, it is suggested that the Postal Department may consider to revisit the terms and conditions of postage and to quantify the actual compensation that may be payable to the sender in the event of delay in delivery of post on per day basis in each and every case of such delay. 21. The U.P. Public Service Commission is a constitutional body under Article 315 of the Constitution of India and, as such, is vested with huge discretion in the matter of discharge of its function. Accordingly, we issue an advisory to the Commission to consider formation or amendment of its rules of procedure so that genuine delay in receipt of application forms, when the online application forms are within time and in order, may be condoned and such forms are accepted by exercising the discretionary powers, specially in those cases where the forms are sent well within time say a week before the last date of submission of application form, even if they are delivered subsequent in time. This will avoid rejection of the candidature of genuine and meritorious candidates on technicalities. 22. The writ petition is dismissed with the above direction and observation.