Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1323 (JHR)

Priyank Kunal v. State of Jharkhand

2022-11-23

ANANDA SEN

body2022
JUDGMENT : ANANDA SEN, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. By filing this writ application, petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to allow him to participate in the selection process pursuant to Advertisement No. 7/2021 for appointment on the post of Medical Officer (Basic Grade) under Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of Jharkhand. Further he prays to quash the communication by which the petitioner has been informed that his application was rejected as time barred. 3. The facts are admitted in this case. 4. The petitioner did his MBBS in the year 2020 from Shri Sathya Sai Medical College and Research Institute, Puducherry. He was granted Provisional Pass Certificate on 22.9.2020 and Provisional Degree Certificate was also granted on 17.11.2021. The petitioner underwent Internship and he was granted “Compulsory Rotatory Resident Internship Completion Certificate” on 04.02.2022. The petitioner got himself registered for medical practice in the State of Tamil Nadu and also in the State of Jharkhand. 5. Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) on 05.01.2022 issued a press communication for appointment of Medical Officer (Basic Grade) under Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of Jharkhand. Applications were sought for online from 11.01.2022 to 09.02.2022. Examination fee was required to be submitted by 10.02.2022 till 11.45 P.M. It was mandated that hard copy was required to be submitted by 18th February, 2022 by 5.00 p.m. 6. Be it noted that it is an admitted case of the parties that online application was a simplicitor online application without asking for any annexure or certificates of qualification. Those documents to be filed along with hard copy. The petitioner has submitted online application on 9th February, 2022 and the fee was deposited within time. The dispute is in respect of filing of hard copy. It is an admitted case that the petitioner sent hard copy by Speed post from Dumka on 15.2.2022 which was delivered in the office of JPSC on 21.02.2022 at 18.15. P.M. which is admittedly beyond the last date. As the hard copy was received beyond the last date fixed for receipt of the same, his candidature was rejected as time barred. 7. P.M. which is admittedly beyond the last date. As the hard copy was received beyond the last date fixed for receipt of the same, his candidature was rejected as time barred. 7. Counsel for the petitioner’s sole argument is that he had applied online within time, deposited the fees within time and the delay in submitting the hard copy is solely attributed to the postal departmental for which the petitioner cannot be penalized and his application could not have been rejected. He submits that he sent the documents by post and the date of depositing the documents with the postal department was within time and it was the postal department’s fault in not delivering the hard copy to the JPSC within time, for which he cannot be made responsible and his case should be considered. 8. Counsel appearing on behalf of JPSC has filed their counter-affidavit and has mentioned that the last date fixed to receive the hard copy was 18.2.2022 and admittedly the hard copy of the petitioner was received on 21.2.2022 which is after the last date, thus, the application of the petitioner was dismissed as time barred. It is also mentioned that in paragraph no. 16 of the counter-affidavit that not only the case of the petitioner but several other cases were rejected on the similar ground. The hard copy of the online application form along with testimonials were supposed to be filed within time. In paragraph 18 it has been mentioned that out of 1460 online application forms, 826 were rejected in view of non-compliance of terms of the advertisement in submission of online application form as well as hard copy of the online application form. This information was communicated to all the concerned. It has further been mentioned that interview has started with effect from 19.11.2022 and continued till 24.11.2022. 9. From the pleading of the parties, it is clear and admitted that the hard copy of the online application form along with testimonials of the petitioner reached JPSC after the last date. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner has posted by speed post the hard copy of application form before the last date but the same was received by JPSC after the last date. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner has posted by speed post the hard copy of application form before the last date but the same was received by JPSC after the last date. There was a condition in the advertisement that the hard copy should be submitted to JPSC by 18.02.0222 till 5.00 P.M. In this case there was no direction by JPSC to send the hard copies by Post/Speed post. Thus, the Postal Department is not the agent of JPSC rather is of the petitioner. If the JPSC would have directed the candidates to deposit the hard copy by post then the postal department could have been said to be the agent of JPSC, in that case the matter would have been otherwise. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Unit Trust of India vs. Ravinder Kumar Shukla and Others, (2005) 7 SCC 428 held that in a case where there is no contract or request by the receiver the post-office would act as agent of sender. Paragraph no. 9 of the said judgment has been quoted below: “9. Thus the law is that in the absence of any contract or request from the payee, mere posting would not amount to payment. In cases where there is no contract or request, either express or implied, the post office would continue to act as the agent of the drawer. In that case the loss is of the drawer.” 11. There was a delay on the part of postal department for which the JPSC cannot be directed to accept the hard copy of the petitioner beyond the last date of submission. Since there was no latches on the part of the JPSC, JPSC cannot be directed to accept the candidature of the petitioner when admittedly the hard copy reached beyond the last date. Further directing the JPSC to accept the form of the petitioner would mean doing injustice to all the similarly situated candidates whose applications has been rejected by JPSC on the same ground. The coordinate bench of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 6193 of 2018 more or less is similar case held that no direction can be given to the JPSC when the latches is on the part of the postal department. 12. Considering the aforesaid fact, this application stands dismissed as no relief can be granted to the petitioner.