Baljit Singh vs State of Haryana

Rajiv Narain Raina, J.—The reason assigned for rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Animal Attendant advertised through public notice dated 02.09.2011 is that the petitioner''s application was received after the cut off date. The cut off date was 01.10.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that his application was put in transmission through speed post on 30.09.2011. The application apparently was put in transmission too late to have reached before the cut off date. The closing dates in advertisements cannot be kept open for receipt of applications beyond the time allowed in a recruitment process where thousands of applications may be received for consideration for selection. The question of postal delays has been answered by a Full Bench decision of this Court in Rahul Prabhakar Vs. Punjab Technical University and Others, . The Full Bench has held that application forms sent by post but delivered after the expiry of the last date and time fixed cannot be entertained either by relaxation of conditions or by enlarging the time on the ground that the delay was only on the part of the postal authorities.

In Union of India (UOI) Vs. Mohd. Nazim, the Supreme Court dealt with provisions of the Post Office Act, 1898 and the Contract Act, 1872 and in the light of Sections 2(f), 17 and 23(3) of the 1898 Act and Section 182 of the latter Act held that the Post Office is not an agent of the sender of articles rather it is really a branch of the public office subject to the provisions of the Post Office Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

In the absence of privity of contract, this Court cannot help the petitioner and direct the respondents to entertain his application and call him to participate in the recruitment process.

Mr. Nehra, to buttress this argument relies on State of Bihar and Others Vs. Amrendra Kumar Mishra, to submit that postal delay by itself cannot be a ground to take a sympathetic view. All that arises is a statutory presumption of delivery and no more.

Mr. Namit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 - Postal Department relies on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Nikhil Vs. Maharishi Dahanand University and Others, to submit that a University is well within its right to reject the application for admission if the form is received beyond the period specified due to postal delay. Such delay cannot be condoned. In view of the legal position, I find no ground to interfere in this matter and would dismiss the petition accordingly.

Dismissed.