Geetanjali vs State of Haryana and Another

Rajiv Narain Raina, J.—The present application has been filed seeking review of the order passed by this court on 05.07.2013, whereby the writ petition was dismissed on the statement of learned counsel for the respondent-Haryana Public Service Commission (for brevity ''the Commission''), that no roll number was issued to the petitioner and the number on which the petitioner relies upon is only a reference number of the application. The petitioner was also present at the time of passing of this order. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner approached this Court by filing the writ petition assailing the decision of the respondent-Commission rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Dental Surgeon vide letter dated 30.10.2012 (P-5) on the ground that the application of the petitioner was received after the last date i.e. 10.09.2012 and letter dated 05.12.2012 (P-8) rejecting the representation of the petitioner.

The grievance in the petition is that the application form was sent on 31.08.2012 through speed post well in time but the same was received back on 21.09.2012 with the remarks undelivered. The petitioner again sent her application form on 22.09.2012. The petitioner received impugned letter dated 30.10.2012 (P-5) informing her of rejection of application form on the ground that it was received beyond the last date of receipt of applications.

The petitioner pleaded in her petition that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner. The delay has occurred due to negligence on the part of the postal department. She on the basis of figure ''Roll No. 4143'' written in hand on the letter dated 30.10.2012 (P-5) laid stress that the Commission has already issued her roll number, and therefore, denial of the Commission to call her for the interview is not sustainable in law.

The written statement was filed by the Commission and Mr. H.N. Mehtani, learned counsel for the Commission has apprised this Court that no roll number was ever issued to the petitioner and her application has been rejected on the ground that the same was received beyond the last date of receipt of applications just as many others have been rejected on ground of late receipt. Thus, the writ petition was dismissed as indicated above in the presence of learned counsel for the parties and also the petitioner.

The petitioner appearing in person through the present review application has again laid stress upon the figure ''Roll No. 4143'' written in hand on the letter dated 30.10.2012 (P-5) to claim that the Commission has already issued her roll number, and therefore, she is entitled to be called for the interview. She further argues that she had come to the Court well in time since when she filed the writ petition at that time the interviews had not yet started and no candidate was called for interview, therefore, petitioner deserves to be called for interview.

Mr. H.N. Mehtani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Commission has filed reply to the review application. The same is taken on record. He has also produced original record. A perusal of the record shows that the submissions of the petitioner are factually incorrect. The petitioner sent her application form through speed post on 31.08.2012 at the address "The Secretary, Haryana Public Service Commission, Panchkula, Chandigarh, Bays No. 1-10, Block ''B'', Sector 4, Chandigarh-160017". The said letter was received back by the petitioner on 21.09.2012 as the petitioner has sent the letter at wrong misleading address. She again on 22.09.2012 sent her application form. It is submitted that the last date for receipt of application forms was 10.09.2012. Delay was only on the part of the petitioner who sent the application form at a wrong address at Chandigarh and the letter could not be delivered to the Commission at Panchkula on time.

The cut off dates laid down in the prospectus are significant. The milestones laid down therein have to be adhered to. Late receipt of application forms would not justify an order directing the Commission to issue admit card to the petitioner to appear for the interview. The terms of prospectus are binding. This has been so held by five Full Benches of this Court in Amardeep Singh Sahota Vs. The State of Punjab etc., Raj Singh Vs. The Maharshi Dayanand University and Others, Sachin Gaur Vs. Punjab University, Patiala and others, Anil Jain v. Controller of Exams, MDU, (1997) 3 RSJ 88 and Indu Gupta Vs. Director, Sports Punjab and Another,

Delay in receipt of application form thus does not make sufficient ground for interference. The Commission cannot be saddled with a liability not earned by it. In Mridul Dhar (Minor) and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, the Supreme Court has emphasized the value of cut off dates in MBBS/BDS admissions and that they deserve strict adherence and any departure would be unacceptable. On the issue of postal delays, this Court in Joginder Singh Vs. Haryana Public Service Commission while speaking through S.S. Nijjar J, (when his Lordship adorned this Court) held that entrustment of a postal article with the post office for transmission to the addressee does not give rise to a contractual relationship between the sender and the post office. The date and time for receipt of application form fixed in the advertisement has to be strictly adhered to. It is not to be altered by this court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution. The judgment was rendered in the context of postal negligence in remitting an application form to the Staff Selection Commission instead of the Haryana Public Service Commission. The claim of the petitioner that his application be treated to be received within time and to be called for interview was rejected.

It is the admitted position that firstly the petitioner has sent the application form at a wrong address and the same was returned to her. She again sent the same after the due date for receipt of applications. Thus, the figure ''Roll No. 4143'' written on the letter (P-5) informing the rejection of application form of the petitioner is immaterial. Mr. Mehtani has also shown me admit cards issued to the other candidates calling them for interviews. These are different from that of letter dated 30.10.2012 (P-5) which only informs the petitioner that it is not possible to call her for interview because her application has been received with delay. Roll No. 4143 was actually issued to one Mr. Saurabh Singhai by the respondent-Commission.

In view of the facts as well as legal position explained above, there is no merit in the present application and the same being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.

Before parting with the case, I am constrained to observe that the conduct of the petitioner in levelling allegations not only against Mr. H.N. Mehtani, learned counsel for the Commission but also against her own counsel, as evidenced from the contents of the review application is not good. With anguish, I extract the relevant paragraphs of the application:-

That a reading of the above said order clearly shows that above said order has been passed without recording the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner because the ground on which the claim of the petitioner has been denied is factually incorrect and petitioner was given a particular Roll Number i.e. 4143."

That another fact which comes to light is that respondent Counsel has misled this Hon''ble Court by stating that no roll number was issued to the petitioner-applicant and the number on which the petitioner relies upon is only a reference number of the application. A reading of Annexure P-5 clearly shows that it carries two numbers one is written on the top against which word Roll No. 4143 is clearly mentioned and there is another number against which Sr. No. RG. 2/2011/14530 is mentioned.

That as the most vital fact of the case despite being part of record was not brought to the notice of the Hon ''ble Court and the order has been passed against the petitioner despite the fact that the most vital fact was available on the face of record. This negligence on the part of the counsel for the petitioner of not bringing this vital fact to the notice of the Hon''ble or due to the reason that respondent counsel misled this Hon ''ble Court by stating wrong facts before this Hon''ble Court. Due to this reason the petitioner has suffered an irreparable loss and injury. Since it is well settled principle of law that party should not be made to suffer either on account of negligence of counsel for petitioner or due to the fact that respondent counsel misled this Hon ''ble Court.

That had the counsel for respondent not misled this Hon''ble Court or had he brought right facts to the notice of this Hon''ble Court the fate of writ petition would have been different because a reading of the order shows that despite the fact that this fact regarding petitioner having been assigned a particular roll number is part of the record of the case, which were not brought to the notice of this Hon''ble Court. Had this fact been considered by this Hon''ble Court the petitioner-applicant is confident that the fate of the case would have been different.

That a reading of above said facts clearly shows that the respondent had intentionally concealed the above stated material facts from this Hon''ble Court in order to get a favourable order. The act and conduct of the respondent proves his malafide intention for not bringing all these above facts to the notice of this Hon''ble Court.

The allegations made by the petitioner against the learned counsel are factually incorrect, baseless, vague and misconceived. The petitioner who is an educated person has acted rashly and by abusing her position as a litigant before this Court & also abusing the process of Court with impunity has filed the present review application knowing fully well that the application form sent by her has been received back undelivered since she has dispatched it at wrong address as she produced the original before me in Court appearing in person. Such conduct of the petitioner is not good. I think she has made allegations against her own counsel for the entertainment of this application but allegations against Mr. H.N. Mehtani, a very senior counsel of this Court are completely false and shameful. Mr. Mehtani has assisted this Court for decades very fairly on the basis of the records in numerable cases. He has no ill-will against the petitioner or anyone. The use of word ''respondent-counsel misled this Court'' so many times by the petitioner is contemptuous.

Keeping in view the above, a finding can safely be recorded that the petitioner has misused the process of Court. However, since the petitioner is a young lady doctor whose career has not yet started, I restrain myself from commenting any further and would dismiss the application as without merit but without imposing exemplary costs. A copy of this order be sent to the petitioner at her given address as this Court would expect that she writes a letter of apology to Mr. Mehtani in saner moment. A copy of this order be also delivered to Mr. Mehtani by personal hand of a Peon deputed for the purpose.