Allahabad High Court
Ram Dhari Yadav And 8 Ors vs State Of U.P. And Another on 26 September, 2014
Author: Rajan Roy
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 59 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 53055 of 2014 Petitioner :- Ram Dhari Yadav And 8 Ors Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- V.K. Singh,D.K. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Heard Sri HP Sahi, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for the respondents.
The counsel for the petitioner submits that in a similar matter i.e. Writ A No. 47264 of 2014, the following orders have been passed.
"Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on Heard counsel for the parties. With their consent, this writ petition is being disposed of finally without inviting counter affidavit.
Petitioners no.1 and 2 have completed their diploma in Pharmacy in the year 1992 and the petitioner no.3 in the year 1990. The respondents issued an advertisement on 2.6.2014 inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Ayurvedic Pharmacist. According to counsel for the petitioners, the advertisement prescribed 14.6.2014, as last date for receipt of the applications.
The case of the petitioners is that they made application on 5.6.2014 but on account of postal mistake, it was inadvertently delivered to Director General, Medical Health, Swasthya Bhawan. The petitioners made a representation in this regard before the Director, Ayurvedic who held an enquiry and whereupon, Chief Post Master, G.P.O. Lucknow, by his letter dated 9.7.2014 informed the Director Ayurvedic that by inadvertence the letter was delivered to wrong person. It is thus the contention of the petitioners that the mistake was of the postal department and the petitioners have been wrongly ousted from the counseling, which was done by the respondents.
The petitioners have now approached this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to include the names of the petitioners in the counseling list and after holding their counseling they be appointed on the post of Ayurvedic Pharmacist.
On the other hand, learned standing counsel submitted that under the advertisement, two modes were prescribed for sending the applications i.e. by post and by hand personally. He thus submits that the petitioners, who have chosen one of the prescribed modes, cannot complain of the postal delay as the post office was working as the agent of the petitioners. He further very fairly submitted that since the Director Ayurvedic has already called for information from the G.P.O. Lucknow and, therefore, he is competent to take decision in the matter.
After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the material on record, I am of the opinion that interest of justice would be served in directing the respondent no.2 to take appropriate decision on the claim made by the petitioners for being permitted to participate in the counseling.
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file fresh representation alongwith certified copy of this order before respondent no.2. In the event, any such representation is made, respondent no.2 shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably within next three weeks.
It is clarified that this Court has not adjudicated on the merits of the claim of the petitioners and it shall be examined by respondent no.2, while taking decision in the matter."
He claims the benefit of the aforesaid order. There is no dispute that the matter is similar to the aforesaid. In these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file separate representations before respondent no. 2 alongwith certified copy of this order. In the event any such representation is made, respondent no. 2 shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law expeditiously within the next three weeks. It is clarified that this Court has not adjudicated on the merit of the claim of the petitioner and that shall be examined by respondent no. 2 independently while taking aforesaid decision keeping in mind the aforesaid court's order referred herein above.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.9.2014 SKS