Punjab-Haryana High Court
Akhilesh Grover vs State Of Punjab And Others on 20 September, 2011
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Jaswant Singh
IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
LPA No.1744 of 2011
Date of Decision: 20.09.2011
Akhilesh Grover ...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present: Mr. Jagmohan Singh Bhatti, Advocate,
for the appellant.
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against an order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 09.09.2011 dismissing the writ petition, wherein the appellant has sought permission to appear in the main examination even though his application has been received after the last/cut off date.
The last date for submitting applications for main examination for PCS (Executive Branch) was 15.02.2011. The appellant sent his application vide speed post on 08.02.2011, but the same was received by the Punjab Public Service Commission on 22.2.2011 i.e. after the cut-off date. Hence, the candidature of the appellant along with other many candidates was rejected. The relevant extract in respect of the procedure for submission of application forms reads as under:
"1. The candidates shortlisted for the Main Examination are hereby informed that an 'Application Form' and an 'Envelope' (duly numbered) Kumar Vimal 2004.12.23 00:33 verified P&HC Chandigarh LPA No.1744 of 2011 2 have been dispatched to their respective postal addresses through registered post. Only these can be used.
2. If any candidate does not receive his/her form by 25th Jan. 2011, he/she is advised to collect a new 'Application Form' personally from the office of the Commission on 27th, 28th or 31st Jan., 2011 during the office hours.
3. The last date of receipt of duly filled application forms in the office of the Commission is 15th of Feb., 2011 till 5.00 pm. The Commission shall not be responsible for non-receipt of the same or delay due to any account whatsoever."
Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the appellant is an eligible candidate and, therefore, he is entitled to appear in the main examination, as he has submitted his application form through speed post well before the last date i.e. 08.02.2011. Reliance is placed upon Varghese K. Joseph Vs. Custodian and others (2011) 3 SCC 394, in which the Custodian had fixed the cut off date to perform the duty of certification and the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that such cut off date by the Custodian is oblivious of its consequences and other ramification on the investors and that the investors could not be denied dues on the ground of delay in filing the application for certification.
The said judgment is in no way helpful to the arguments raised by learned counsel for the Appellant. In the advertisement issued by the Punjab Public Service Commission, as reproduced above, it was clearly mentioned that the last date of receipt of duly filled application forms is 15.02.2011 and that the Commission shall not be responsible for non-receipt of the same or delay due to any account whatsoever. In fact, the Division Bench of this Court in Saurabh Aggarwal Vs. Kurukshetra University and others AIR 1995 Punjab & Haryana 23, has taken the view that if the application has been dispatched well in time and received late, the candidate was not to blame. But the said view has been overruled by the Full Bench of Kumar Vimal 2004.12.23 00:33 verified P&HC Chandigarh LPA No.1744 of 2011 3 this Court in a judgment reported as Rahul Prabhakar Vs. Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar and others AIR 1998 Punjab & Haryana 18, wherein it was held to the following effect:
"8. .....According to us, the cut off date fixed should be imperative and certain. It cannot be varied according to the whims and fancies of the Authorities. If it is made variable, we are clear in our minds that it will lead to injustice, arbitrariness and unfair results. Applications for admission can be sent by post by courier or delivered by hand. The date with which we are concerned is the date of receipt of the application by the Authorities. The date on which it is sent is not of any consequence. Application sent through registered post before that last date may be delivered after a month or so. There is also possibility of that application being lost in transit and not delivered even. In such uncertainty where can a cut off lime be drawn? In such a situation, our considered opinion is that time and date for the receipt of the application fixed in the prospectus/information brochure has to be strictly adhered to."
It has been further held that the Postal Authorities cannot be considered to be agent of the Co-Ordinator, therefore, the act of handing over the application to the Postal Authorities cannot be considered that the application form was, in fact, given to the Co-Ordinator. It was held that in terms of Section 3 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1893, an article when it is entrusted with the Post Office for being delivered to the addressee till it is delivered to him or his agent, the article will continue to be in the course of transmission.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay South, Bombay Vs. Messrs Ogale Glass Works Ltd. Ogale Wadi AIR 1954 SC 429 has held that between sender and the addressee, it is the request of the addressee that the cheque be sent by post that makes the Post Office an agent of the addressee. If such request has been made, the address cannot be heard to say that the Post Office was not its agent and, therefore, the consequences of loss of cheque cannot fall on the sender.
Kumar Vimal 2004.12.23 00:33 verified P&HC Chandigarh LPA No.1744 of 2011 4 In the present case, there was no representation on behalf of the respondents that the application forms need to be sent through registered post or speed post. The addressee i.e. Punjab Public Service Commission never designated the Post Office as its agent. There was clear stipulation that for any delay in receipt of the applications, the Punjab Public Service Commission shall not be responsible. Since the Post Office was not an agent of the Punjab Public Service Commission, therefore, delay on the part of the Post Office in delivering the application form to the Punjab Public Service Commission will not make the appellant, a candidate, who has submitted application form within the period prescribed.
In view of the above, we do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, which may warrant any interference by this Court in appeal.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
20.09.2011 (JASWANT SINGH)
Vimal JUDGE
Kumar Vimal
2004.12.23 00:33
verified
P&HC Chandigarh