UTTARAKHAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION vs SMT BHAGWATI DEVI AND OTHERS

K.M. JOSEPH, C.JÂ Â Â Â Â

Appellants are the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission. Since the appeals      are connected, we dispose of the same by a common

judgment. We take WPSS No. 1999 of 2015 as the leading case. The reliefs which were sought in the writ petition are as follows:

“(a) To declare the Act of respondents not allowing the petitioner to participate in interview examination as arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of

Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India.

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner participate in the interview examination

of Lecturer Hindi being conducted by respondent no. 3

(c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to declare her result if petitioner scores within the merit of

selected candidates.

(d) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 4 and 5 to pay compensation to the petitioner for the

mental agony harassment caused by respondent no. 4 and 5.â€​

The case of the writ petitioner in brief in the said writ petition is as follows:

She contends that she, belongs to the Scheduled Caste category. She participated in the selection process of Lecturer, for which an advertisement

was issued on 06.01.2015. She alleges that she lives in a remote area. She gave her application online and underwent the screening test. Result was

declared. When it came to submitting the documents and the application, it is her specific case that since she was a resident of remote area in Chamoli

District and there was no facility of internet accessibility, she could not know about the information which was dated 16.6.2015 issued by the

appellants/commission through website only.Â

It’s her further case that she came to know about it only on 26.6.2015 when she went to Srinagar. Thereafter, she downloaded the information on

26.6.2015, on the same day. She could not get sufficient time to submit her documents with respondent no. 3. It is also stated in paragraph 15 of the

writ petition as follows:

“That it is very relevant to point out here that petitioner lives in a village which is in the other side of the market known as Tharali, in between

thereof there falls a river and the only way to link the market and the village is a bridge, but the bridge was damaged in the disastrous calamity of

2013. Since thereafter no bridge has been restored except a rope way having a single seat trolley.â€​

 Thereafter, it is her case that she somehow managed to go to the post office at Tharali on 30.6.2015 and she sent all the documents by

registered/speed post (Annexure-8 to the writ petition). It is her case that when she inquired from the postal authorities, Tharali about the timely

dispatch and delivery, she was assured that normally it will take 2 to 3 days to reach the destination. It was expected that the documents would reach

respondent no. 3 by 03.7.2015. The last date for submission of document is shown as 07.7.2015. On 16.7.2015 the petitioner received the envelope

back containing the documents with the remark dated 08.7.2015, with seal of respondent no. 3 on it. It is revealed that it took 8 days for the Speed

post item to reach Dehradun. It is thereafter that she came to know about the interview and approached this Court.

Pleadings were exchanged. The learned Single Judge took the view that the petitioner underwent screening, but admittedly the documents were given

one day late and hyper-technical approach was adopted by the Commission. Learned Single Judge took note of the interim order dated 30.11.2015

passed by this Court, by which the writ petitioner was allowed to participate in the interview and also noted that one post was directed to be kept

reserved for the petitioners (petitioner in other case also). Thereafter the writ petition was allowed and the appellant was directed to declare the result

of the petitioners.

We Heard Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. D.K. Joshi, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1 in SPA No.

182/2017. Mr. M. K. Chand, Advocate holding brief of Mr. M.S. Bisht, Advocate for respondent no. 1 in SPA No. 216 of 2017 and Mr. Rajesh

Sharma, Central Govt. Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 4 & 5.

Learned counsel for the appellant- Commission would submit that the learned Single Judge has not noted the fact that a bench decision of this Court

which would govern the fate of these cases was produced along with the counter, but was not considered.

In the said bench decision, this Court has taken the view fact that the postal delay will be of no avail to the candidate, if the article reaches the

office of the Commission beyond the stipulated date. In the present case, he further submits that apart from publishing the information in the website

of Commission on 16.6.2015, the matter was also published in a notification in daily newspaper and therefore the judgment of learned Single Judge

cannot be sustained. Per contra, the learned counsel Mr. D.K. Joshi would submit that the information was uploaded only in website and the facts

were reiterated.

This is a case where as we notice the last date for filling the application form was 27.01.2015. The applications were to be uploaded online.

Thereafter, there was screening test which was held on 05.4.2015. The result of the same was declared on 12.6.2015. True it is that the petitioners

may have applied online as stipulated, participated in the screening test and the result also may have been declared; but the further procedure was as

follows:.Â

“6. That after declaration of the result a notification dated 16.06.2015 was published in daily newspapers and also uploaded in the website of the

answering respondent on 16.06.2015 by which the successful candidates were required to submit a signed hard copy of the online application form

alongwith testimonials regarding their educational qualification caste certificates and any other certificates in support of claim made by the candidates

in their application form till 07.07.2015 in the office of the answering respondent. It was also made clear that after the last date of submission dated

07.07.2015 no application form will be accepted.â€​

In fact, the notification also, which has been produced provides for the said eventuality in case if the documents does not reach the Commission

within the stipulated date, namely, 07.07.2015 no application form will be accepted. There is no dispute in fact that papers/documents sent by the

petitioner reached only after 07.07.2015. The Commission has a definite case that it is processing number of applications and the Public Service

Commission, which is a Constitutional Body and is conducting a selection, is obliged to abide by the rules of the game. When it stipulates a last date for

doing certain things and if the time is over shot, may be assuming by the negligence of any other agency, like the post office (we make it clear we

have not pronounced the negligence in this case as such), it may not be open to the writ court, the duty of which is to keep the authorities within the

bounds of law and to have oversight over their actions with the yardstick of legality and fairness, to call upon it to violate its own norms and to declare

the results.

In fact, this Court has taken the view that by putting the blame at the doorstep of the post office, the relief cannot be granted as against the

Commission and we notice the view as taken in WPSB No. 154 of 2015 “Shatru Jeet Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand & othersâ€, which has been

followed in the judgment in SPA No. 143 of 2016 and other decisions also. Therefore, the fact that there is delay of only one day may not be of any

avail to the party as long as the time limit has been crossed.

Mr. D.K. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent would seek to distinguish the other judgments by pointing out that this is a case wherein the

selection process, the petitioner has applied within time and this is the later stage and therefore this must be viewed differently. In other words, the

application which was to be uploaded online was done within time and the petitioner was also permitted to sit for the screening test. The result was

also declared. It was only at the later stage that the petitioner fell short by a day.Â

We are afraid we cannot accept this contention. The procedure was adopted by the Commission to allow the applications to be uploaded online

initially and on the basis of the same, the screening test was to be held but this was subject to the application form along with the supporting

documents being made available by a particular date for calling them for the interview.Â

It was made crystal clear in the notification that if the documents as required are not produced by the stipulated time, the candidature will stand

rejected. Therefore, having regard to the tenor of the notification, we see no reason to take a different view.

Next, Mr. D.K. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the direction given is only to declare the results and therefore this High

Court should not interfere and nobody else would be affected. We are afraid that the argument is without any basis. We are unable to agree. The

Commission would have rejected various other applications, which were not received as provided. When a person comes to a court, the writ court, as

we have noticed already, is expected to act in such a manner that the authorities are kept within the bounds of law and a cause of action, which is

based on a transgression being committed by the Selecting Body and that too, by a high Constitutional Body like a Public Service Commission, cannot

be accepted. If, in fact the result of the petitioner is directed to be declared and if the petitioner is found successful, it would also have the result that a

person, who has applied within time and whose application was liable to be considered in place of the petitioner and selected on merits, would be

displaced, which would also be legally unjust.Â

Lastly, Mr. D.K. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that in view of the fact that post office was negligent, Court may go into

that aspect and also direct that some compensation may be paid for which the petitioner has impleaded the parties and also sought relief. This aspect

is not engaged by learned Single Judge in the judgment. We are not inclined to go into the said question. We only, however, leave it open to the

petitioner to proceed against the concerned respondents for the alleged negligence on their part in delivering the documents as alleged in the writ

petition.Â

Subject to the above, the appeals are allowed. Judgment of the learned Single Judge in both the writ petitions will stand set aside and the writ

petitions will stand rejected insofar as it relates to the relief as sought against the Commission.

No order as to costs.