ORDER 1. The present Petition has been filed by a candidate of SC Category who applied for the post of Vehicle Driver in the respondent/University in pursuance to the Advertisement dated 26.5.2017 (Annexure P-1). 2. The Petitioner was given a Call letter for Interview vide Annexure P-2 dated 15.6.2018 and the Petitioner had received the Call Letter on 23.6.2018 at Guna which is about 450 Kms. from Jabalpur whereas the Interview was scheduled at 9.00 a.m. on 23.6.2018 due to which the Petitioner could not appear in the Interview and the offer letter got wasted. 3. The case of the Petitioner is that the letter was actually put in post only on 19.6.2018 and the authority had expected the candidate to appear for Interview on 23.6.2018 which was not possible by any means and the Call letter was posted in the Post Office after a period of 4 days from the date it was prepared on 15.6.2018, only with a view to adversely affect the chances of the candidates to appear in the Interview and to select their blue eyed candidates. 4. Per contra, it is contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent/University that the letter was put into post with delay only because two days in between were Saturday and Sunday and therefore, there was 4 days delay in putting the Call Letter in post which was put in post on 19.6.2018. It is contended that 4 days is a sufficient time for the candidate to receive the Call Letter and come down from 450 kms way and attend the Interview within 4 days. It is further contended that the Interview list was also uploaded on the website of the University. 5. Upon hearing the rival parties, it is seen that the Call Letter was prepared by the University on 15.6.2018 and it was put in post only on 19.6.2018 while the candidate was expected to appear for Interview at 9.00 a.m. on 23.6.2018, from a place 450 Kms away from Jabalpur. 6. The delay of 4 days was explained by learned counsel for the University on the ground that two days in between i.e, 16.6.2018 and 17.6.2018 were Saturday and Sunday and therefore, the Letter was posted on 19.6.2018. 7. In the opinion of this Court, the aforesaid assertion of the University only depicts the malice of the University. 6. The delay of 4 days was explained by learned counsel for the University on the ground that two days in between i.e, 16.6.2018 and 17.6.2018 were Saturday and Sunday and therefore, the Letter was posted on 19.6.2018. 7. In the opinion of this Court, the aforesaid assertion of the University only depicts the malice of the University. The Call Letter was prepared on 15.6.2018 which was a Friday and it could have been posted on the same date or at the most on the next date which was a Saturday in Post Office which remain open on Saturdays. However, the University posted the Letter only on Tuesday i.e, on 19.6.2018 without there being any valid explanation for this delay. It is difficult to understand that the University expected the Letter which was posted on 19.06.2018 to be delivered to a place 450 Kms away and the candidate to have come down to Jabalpur and all this to happen within four days because interview was scheduled within 4 days of despatch of letter from Jabalpur. The University took 4 days from moving from its office to Post Office, and expected the letter to move 450 km and candidate, another 450 km. within 4 days. 8. The aforesaid facts do clearly indicate that the University maliciously acted in this case in deliberately posting the Letter four days after it was prepared and barring one Sunday in between, there was no reason to have not posted the Letter on the same date or on the next date which was a Saturday. The University did not even post the Letter on Monday but posted it only on Tuesday to make it fully sure that it does not reach the candidates who are residing in far flung places in the State. 9. It is settled in law that the examining body cannot be put to disadvantage on account of inordinate postal delays. However, it is not the case of inordinate postal delay but it is a case of recruiting body maliciously delaying despatch of the Call Letter by post and posting it 4 days after preparing the Call Letter and then giving the Candidate a period of 4 days to receive the Letter 450 Kms away and then to come down to Jabalpur and appear in the Interview on 23.6.2018. The letter was received by the candidate on 23.6.2018 at Guna which is 450 Kms. away and the period of 4 days taken by the Postal authorities cannot be said to be inordinate delay given the distance between Guna and Jabalpur. 10. Even the time of Booking of Article as evident at page 19 of the Writ Petition, is 3.20 p.m. on 19.6.2018 which makes the intention of University clear in booking the postal article on 19.6.2018 also, only towards the close of the Working hours of the Post Office. 11. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the University argued that the Call Letter was duly displayed on the website of University and referred to para 8 of the reply. However, the assertion in para 8 of the reply is as under:- "8. That it is most respectfully submitted that the petitioner's claim of mala-fide intent is baseless and speculative, on the contrary, the recruitment process was conducted fairly, uniformly, and in accordance with law. The petitioner had ample opportunity to appear for the test, as the schedule was publicly notified on the University’s website on 15.6.2018." 12. The aforesaid assertion is only display of "schedule of Interview" and not that the Call letters were displayed on the website. Not even any webshot of the website has been filed. Even believing the assertion in para 8 of the reply at its face value, only the schedule of interview was displayed on the website of the University. 13. Therefore, it is a clear case of the malicious action of the University in denying fair chance to the Petitioner to appear in the Interview. 14. Resultantly, the Petition is allowed. The Petitioner is directed to appear in the Interview to participate in practical examination, sporting examination and Interview for the post of Vehicle Driver which was scheduled on 23.6.2018. 15. Let the tests be scheduled within 15 days from today and the result be given effect to. 16. It is made clear that since the Petitioner is not at fault and it is the University which is at fault in acting with deliberate malice, therefore, it is directed that even if post is not vacant then the University shall be under obligation to create a supernumerary post in case there is no available vacant post. 17. 16. It is made clear that since the Petitioner is not at fault and it is the University which is at fault in acting with deliberate malice, therefore, it is directed that even if post is not vacant then the University shall be under obligation to create a supernumerary post in case there is no available vacant post. 17. The University filed reply seven years after filing of this petition, only in October 2025, when personal presence of the Registrar was secured, though it had appeared through counsel way back in the year 2018 itself. Looking to the manner in which the University has acted in the present case, it is thought appropriate to saddle it with a cost of Rs.50,000/- which shall be paid to the Petitioner within 15 days. 18. Accordingly, the Petition is allowed and disposed off.