High Courts

Rajni Yadav vs Public Service Commission,Alld.and Another

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 11 January 1995 · Citation: (1995) 01 AHC CK 0036

HON’BLE JUDGES
Palok Basu, J and S.K.Jain, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 25258 of 1994
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 404 words
1.

The petitioner Smt. Rajni Yadav has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer that Public Service Commission and its Chairman be directed to permit the petitioner to submit the form for appearing at the Combined State/Upper Subordinate Services (Main) Examination, 1992 and allow her to appear in the said examination.

2.

It was argued on behalf of the petitioner by Sri Dinesh Chandra that the petitioner has passed preliminary examination and intimation about the last date for submitting the form for main examination remained undelivered to her. It is further contended that since the petitioner was resident of Delhi and no news item was published in newspaper of Delhi, the petitioner could not get intimation about last date for submitting the form for main examination.

3.

Sri V. M. Sahai appearing for the Commission and its Chairman was directed to file counteraffidavit which has been done and was heard in opposition.

4.

It has been averred in the petition that the application of the petitioner intimating the change of address was not received by the office of the Public Service Commission. It was then averred that Commission had sent a registered letter to the petitioner. On the basis of this averment, it was argued that presumption would be attached to the sending of letter and its delivery on the petitioner. There does not seem any justifiable reason for the petitioner not to submit the form for final examination if the letter had been delivered to her. It is common knowledge that with great difficulty, a candidate passes preliminary examination and once the petitioner was successful therein there does not appear any reason as to why the petitioner would not submit the form for final examination. Therefore, the assertion of the petitioner that she did not receive any letter from the Commission appears to be acceptable. The further argument that since the petitioner was resident of Delhi, the advertisement of the Commission calling for the submission of form for final examination was not noticed by the petitioner, is acceptable.

5.

In view of the above discussion, there is force in this writ petition which is accordingly allowed. The petitioner may approach the office of the Public Service Commission within 10 days to submit the form which will be furnished to her and she will be permitted to appear in the main examination in accordance with law.