R. Maheswari vs Secretary Selection Committee, Tamil Nadu Professional Courses, Madras and another

By consent the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

After completing her Higher Secondary Examination in March, 1993, the petitioner also improved her marks in Physics by taking an

examination in March, 1994. In the year 1994 the petitioner appeared for the Tamil Nadu Professional Courses Entrance Examination. The

petitioner applied for the first year M.B.B.S. Course in Physio Therapy and Occupational Therapy. The last date for issue of prospectus and

application forms was 15-7-1994 and the last date for submission of applications was also 15-7-1994, 5.30 p.m. The petitioner is said to have

sent her application form duly filled up, on 14-7-1994 from the Gingee Post Office. The petitioner has expected the application form to reach the

first respondent by 5.30 p.m. on 15-7-1994. At the time when the respondents called for the candidates for counselling, the petitioner attended the

office of the first respondent and found that her name did not find a place in the list of the candidates called for counselling. The petitioner also

verified from the Kilpauk Post Office that the application form had been delivered, to the first respondent only on 16-7-1994. Though the

respondents have not filed counter-affidavit, learned Government Advocate has received written instructions and on the basis of such instructions it

is stated that the application form was received only 19-7-1994.

The only question that has to be decided in this writ petition is whether the application of the petitioner should be considered by the respondents

or can be rejected as having been received beyond the last date. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws my attention 10 the notification issued in

respect of the course in question. Clauses 9 and 10 are the relevant clauses. They are as follows:

Last date for issue of prospectus/ application forms at the Government Institutions -- 15th July 1994 5.30 p.m.

Last date for receipt of application form for M.B.B.S./B.D.S./Para Medical. Courses at the Selection Committee Office -- 15th July 1994 at

5.30 p.m."".

My attention has been drawn to the Prospectus where under the Head ""Instructions to Candidates"", it is stated that the completed application form

with enclosures may be delivered in person or sent in the cover provided by Registered Post to the address given therein. One of the arguments of

the learned counsel for the petitioner can be disposed of at the outset. It is stated that the last date for issue of prospectus and application form is

15-7-1994 5.30 p.m. and the last date for receipt of application is also 15-7- 1994 5.30 p.m. In support of the argument that the interpretation in

such cases should be taken liberally and it cannot be taken as mandatory, reliance is placed on In re. Presidential Election, AIR 1974 SC 1682. I

am not inclined to accept this argument for the simple reason that live petitioner admits that she had received the application form sufficiently earlier

and she had to wait till 14-7-1994 because of her father''s absence. Even as a pure question of law, for academic purpose, I do not accept that the

provision in a prospectus or notification calling for application for admission to college 9r a course, should be treated as, discretionary and all

applications received even subsequent, to that date should be considered. Such a proposition will lead to disastrous consequences. The

observation of the Supreme Court were rendered in a totally different circumstances and cannot be applied to this case.

Reliance is next placed in Annada Prasad v. State, AIR 1989 Orissa 130. In this case it was laid down that once the Post Office is recognised

as the agent for transmission of papers the applicant cannot be found fault with, so long as he had despatched the application by registered post, in

time. The Court had laid emphasis on the fact that the notice calling for admissions stipulated that the application form could only be sent by

Registered Post and not by any other manner. I have already pointed out that in this case the applicants were permitted to submit their applications

in person also. Therefore, in my opinion, the ratio of the said judgment cannot be invoked by the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner then relies on the judgment of this Court in P. Sivaramakrishna Pillai Vs. The Land Commissioner, Board of

Revenue, Chepauk, Madras and Others, That ease arose out of Rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) 1969. The

learned Judge held that despatch in that case had been made within lime and that was found to be in compliance with the above said Rule 7. A

perusal of the said Rule indicates that there is also power under Rule 7 to allow further time not exceeding 15 days for presenting any application

provided sufficient cause is shown. I am certain that the decision was rendered only on the phraseology of Rule 7 and cannot be invoked in this

case.

In my opinion, the students who seek to apply for a particular course or to a College should strictly conform to the prospectus regarding the last

date for receipt of applications. In this case I have already referred to the clause which categorically says that the last date for receipt of

applications is 15-7- 1994 at 5.30 p.m. If a candidate does not take the necessary precaution for delivering the copy of the application in time, she

has to blame herself for the consequences. No exception can be taken to the rule and no candidate can claim exemption on any ground be it postal

delay or any other form of delay. The Rule is Rule and it is meant for compliance. The Writ Petition fails and is dismiss. There will however, be no

order as to costs.

Petition dismissed.