Joginder Singh vs Haryana Public Service Commission

S.S. Nijjar, J.—This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to treat the From sent by the petitioner for the post of Lecturer (History) HES-II to be received within time and further for the issuance of a direction to respondent No. 1 to take interview of the petitioner for considering the petitioner for appointment to the post of Lecturer (History) HES-II in the category of posts reserved for Scheduled Caste (B). A prayer is also made to award the damages/compensation to the petitioner from respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

The controversy raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered against the petitioner by a Full Bench decision in the case of Rahul Prabhakar v. Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar and others 1997(3) R.S.J. 475 : 1997(3) SCT 526 (P&H)(FB).

In the present case, respondent No. 1 advertised posts of Lecturer (HES-II) and invited applications from the eligible candidates,. The last date of receipt of the applications form was stipulated as 18.06.2001. On 08.06.2001, the petitioner posted the application form to respondent No. 1 vide Speed Post No. EE799435203IN. The postal department in Kuruk-shetra University sent the same to respondent No. 3, i.e. the Post Master, G.P.O. Sector-17, Chandigarh. It is pleaded that respondent No. 3 instead of delivering the envelope to Haryana Public Service Commissioner (Respondent No. 1), delivered the same to Staff Selection Commission (Respondent No. 2), before 18.06.2001. As a result of the negligence on the part of respondent No. 3, the envelope containing the application form did not reach respondent No. 1 by the stipulated time. On enquiries, it was found that the envelope was still lying with respondent No. 2. On 18.07.2001, on the request of the petitioner, respondent No. 2 returned the envelope to respondent No. 3. On 19.07.2001, respondent No. 3 delivered the envelope to respondent No. I. On the same very day, i.e. 19.07.2001, petitioner made a representation to respondent No. 1 for accepting the application form and to permit him to give the interview. On 26.07.2001, the petitioner met the Chairman of respondent No. 1, but he was orally informed that his application cannot be considered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the negligence of the Post Office. Had the Post Office performed its duty diligently, the application form of the petitioner would have reached respondentNo. 1 within the stipulated period. Learned counsel further submitted that the Post Master General performs statutory functions under Sections 3 and 4 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1893.

Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that the issue raised in the present writ petition is no longer res Integra. In almost similar facts, where application form is received after the closing date, the claim of another applicant was rejected. Against the rejection of the application form, the applicant therein filed Civil Writ Petition No. 9207 of 2001. The aforesaid writ petition has been dismissed at the motion stage by a Division Bench of this Court on 07.08.2001. Apart from this, the Full Bench decision in Rahul Prabhakar''s case (supra), squarely covers the case against the petitioner. After considering the matter at length, it has been held that the 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. It has also been further held that date and time for the receipt of the applications form fixed in the advertisement has to be strictly adhered to. It is not to be altered by this Court in exercise of the powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. No rule or instruction has been brought to the notice of this Court which would enable respondent No. 1 to extend the last date for the receipt of the application forms. In view of the above, no statutory right of the petitioner can be said to have been violated.

For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in the present writ petition. The same is dismissed. No costs.

Petition dismissed.