Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1093 (ALL)

Praveen Kumar v. Registrar General

2020-08-27

PRAKASH PADIA

body2020
ORDER : Prakash Padia, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Chandan Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1. 2. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the prayer to issue a mandamus directing the respondent no. 1/Registrar General, High Court, Allahabad to provide one opportunity again to the petitioner for interview and verification of documents for the post of Farrash (Group-IV) in pursuance of advertisement dated 05.2.2018. 3. The facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that an advertisement was issued by the respondent no. 1 for inviting applications for appointment of Sweeper, Cook, Mali, Farrash (Group-IV) on 05.2.2018. 4. The petitioner applied being the eligible and qualified candidate for the post of farrash. An admit card was issued to the petitioner by which the petitioner was permitted to appear in the written test, which was held on 25.8.2019. The petitioner duly participated in the aforesaid written examination. The result of the same was published on 19.2.2020 in which petitioner was declared qualified. Subsequently on 16.6.2020 a call letter was issued to the petitioner by the respondent no. 2 by which the petitioner was directed to appear for interview and document verification on 30.6.2020 at 8.00 A.M. The same was served upon the petitioner on 30.6.2020 at about 3.15 P.M. The track consignment available on the official website of the postal department is appended as annexure 4 to the writ petition. It appears from perusal of the same that though the postman concerned along-with envelop went to the registered postal address of the petitioner on 6 times, i.e., on 23.6.2020, 24.6.2020, 25.6.2020, 26.6.2020, 27.6.2020 and 29.6.2020 but all the times the remark was made by the postman "item on hold door locked". Ultimately the aforesaid envelop was served on the petitioner on 30.6.2020 at 15.49.11. In this view of the matter, since for inter-view, call letter was not received by the petitioner within time, he was not able to appear before the interview board. Thereafter, a representation was submitted by the petitioner before the respondent no. 1 on 7.7.2020 with a request to permit the petitioner to participate in the interview and for document verification. Since no action was taken on the same, petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 5. Sri Chandan Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. Thereafter, a representation was submitted by the petitioner before the respondent no. 1 on 7.7.2020 with a request to permit the petitioner to participate in the interview and for document verification. Since no action was taken on the same, petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 5. Sri Chandan Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1 placed before this Court the copy of the advertisement published by the respondent no. 1. In para 11 of the advertisement date, time and venue of examination was mentioned. It is further stated in para 12 of the advertisement that the respondent no. 2 was authorized to hold the aforesaid examination. Pursuant to the same, examination in question was held and results of the written examination was declared. Subsequently, a call letter was issued to the petitioner by the respondent no. 2 by speed post on 16.6.2020 by which the petitioner was directed to appear for the document verification and interview and the date fixed for interview was 30.6.2020. It further appears from perusal of the postal document that though the postman tried to serve the aforesaid letter upon the petitioner for the first time on 23.6.2020 but since the petitioner was not available and his residence was locked, the aforesaid letter was not served upon the petitioner. It further appears that the concerned postman tried to serve the aforesaid letter upon the petitioner at least on six occasions but on all the times, he found that the door was locked. In this situation letter was served upon the petitioner for the first time on 30.6.2020 and in view of the same, he was not able to attend the interview. 6. It is further argued by Sri Chandan Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 that there is absolutely no fault either on part of the respondents. He also relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in Gunjan Bharadwaj Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and another reported in 2011 (5) AWC 4719 decided on 23.5.2011. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. From perusal of the facts as narrated above, the Court is of the opinion that there is no fault on part of the respondents. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and another reported in 2011 (5) AWC 4719 decided on 23.5.2011. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. From perusal of the facts as narrated above, the Court is of the opinion that there is no fault on part of the respondents. In this background of the matter, a question arose before this Court that whose fault is this by which the petitioner was prevented from attending interview on the relevant date and time. Whether it is a fault of the respondents or of the postal department. According to the respondents, call letter was dispatched 15 days before from the date of interview by "Speed Post", an urgent delivery scheme of Indian Postal Department. It further appears from perusal of the postal document that though the postman tried to serve the letter in question upon the petitioner for the first time on 23.6.2020 itself but since petitioner was not available and his door was locked, the same could only be served upon the petitioner on 30.6.2020. In this view of the matter, Court is of the opinion that there is absolutely no fault either on part of the respondents in the present writ petition or on part of the postal department. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Neena Chaturvedi Vs. Public Service Commission, Uttar Pradesh reported in 2010 (9) ADJ 152 has held that an advertisement inviting applications for examination or recruitment is merely an invitation to offer and not an offer itself. However, in coming to conclusion the Full Bench has held as follows: "(43). If the postal rule is made applicable in matters of inviting applications to appear for an examination or for an interview, and applications are to be sent by post, even if one application does not reach in time on account of postal delay to scrap the examination or hold special examination in such cases would produce manifest inconvenience and absurdity." 9. In the case of Gunjan Bharadwaj (supra) it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that the authorities could not be held liable for non reaching of postal articles of the petitioner. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:- "Against this background, the Corporation can not be held liable for non-reaching of postal articles to the petitioner. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:- "Against this background, the Corporation can not be held liable for non-reaching of postal articles to the petitioner. Even if we accept that the principle of contract regarding offer and acceptance is applicable between the petitioner and the Corporation, then in that case as soon as an offerer dispatches its offer, his duty is over. We are only required to see whether such offer was made within the prescribed period or not. Factually, we find that it was dispatched within the prescribed period. We also find that in the brochure it has been categorically said that the Corporation is not responsible for any postal delay. The petitioner seeing such clause with open eyes wanted to make offer, pursuant to which the call letter was issued to her by the Corporation well within time. Thereafter, no responsibility lies on the part of the Corporation for such delay." 10. In this view of the matter, I am of the view that no relief, either mandatory or compensatory in nature, can be granted to the petitioner. 11. The writ petition has no force. Accordingly, it is dismissed, however, without imposing any cost.