Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaswinder Singh Sidhu vs State Consumer Disputes Redressal ... on 30 April, 2013
Author: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Bench: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9101 OF 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9101 OF 2013
DATE OF DECISION: April 30, 2013
Jaswinder Singh Sidhu .......Petitioner
Versus
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Haryana .......Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA
Present: Mr.JS Santwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
<><><>
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.
The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved of the action of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana in rejecting his candidature for the post of President of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum on the ground that his application has not been received through proper channel and prior to the last date as stipulated in the advertisement.
2. Facts of the case are in a very narrow compass. The Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission issued advertisement dated 11.2.2013 inviting applications for filling up CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9101 OF 2013 2 ten posts of Presidents in the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forums across the State of Haryana. Apart from laying down the conditions of eligibility, it was clearly stipulated that applications complete in all respects must reach the office of the Secretary, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana latest by 28.2.2013 upto 5.00 p.m. Para 5 of the advertisement read in the following terms:
"Applications complete in all respects must reach the office of Secretary, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Bay No.3-6, Sector 4, Panchkula - 134112 latest by 28.02.2013 upto 5.00 p.m. It is made clear that applications received after the last date of receipt of applications, for any reason, will be liable to be rejected outrightly and the candidates will not be called for interview."
3. In the note contained in the advertisement, clause (iii)
(a) stated in categoric terms that the serving Officers are to send their applications through proper channel positively by the last date as fixed in para 5.
4. As per the pleaded case of the petitioner himself who is working as a member of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chandigarh, he submitted his application form to his Department i.e. the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (U.T.) on 23.2.2012. It has further been asserted that the petitioner out of pre-caution also submitted an advance copy of his application by hand to the respondent- Commission on 26.2.2012. However, in terms of impugned communication dated 10.4.2013, Annexure P2, the petitioner has been informed that his candidature for the post of President, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9101 OF 2013 3 District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in the State of Haryana has been rejected for the reason that his application has not been received through proper channel from his Department as was the requirement under the advertisement by the last date fixed in para 5 thereof.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the action of the respondent-Commission in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner is arbitrary and unreasonable. It has been argued that the petitioner had submitted his application with his Department well in time i.e. on 23.2.2012 itself so as to conform to the stipulation contained in the advertisement as regards the application to be submitted through proper channel. Argument raised is that once the petitioner had submitted his application to his own Department, he lost control as regards processing of the same and if any delay has occurred thereafter, the same cannot work to his prejudice. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner otherwise being eligible for the post of President cannot be denied consideration for appointment only on the ground that his application through proper channel has not been received within the stipulated time-frame contained in the advertisement.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and having perused the pleadings on record, I am of the considered view that the writ petition merits dismissal.
7. The stipulation contained in the advertisement was couched in unambiguous and categoric terms. The application for the post of President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9101 OF 2013 4 Forum was to reach the office of the respondent-Commission latest by 28.2.2013 upto 5.00 p.m. Furthermore, the candidates were put to notice at the very outset in terms of para 5 of the advertisement that applications received after the last date of receipt of applications, for any reason were liable to be rejected outright and the candidates would not be called for interview. Still further, note (iii) sub-clause (a) required the serving officers/applicants to send their applications through proper channel positively by the last date fixed in para 5 of the advertisement i.e. 28.2.2013. The stipulation contained in the advertisement is applicable to all. Such time-frame admits of no exception whatsoever. The candidates were required to strictly comply with such time-frame. The respondent-Commission had adopted negative prohibitory words to bring about the imperative nature of the stipulation contained in the advertisement. In Lachmi Narain etc. v. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 714, their Lordships of Supreme Court observed, "if the provision is couched in prohibitive or negative language, it can rarely be directory, the use of pre-emptory language in a negative form is per se indicative of the intent that the provision is to be mandatory."
8. Even otherwise, it is by now well settled that the provisions contained in an advertisement/information brochure inviting applications would have the force of law and would require to be strictly complied with. Such proposition would apply with equal force even as regards the stipulation of the last date of receipt of application forms. In this regard, the observations of Full Bench of this Court in Rahul Prabhakar v. Punjab Technical CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9101 OF 2013 5 University, Jalandhar, 1997(3) SCT 526 would be relevant and the same read in the following terms:
".....Thus, it is settled law that the provisions contained in the information brochure for the common entrance Test 1997 have the force of law and have to be strictly complied with. No modification can be made by the Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Whenever a notification calling for applications, fixes date and time within which applications are to be received whether sent through post or by any other mode that time schedule has to be complied with in letter and spirit. If the application has not reached the Co-ordinator or the competent authority as the case may be the same cannot be considered as having been filed in terms of the provisions contained in the prospectus or Information Brochure. Applications filed in violation of the terms of the brochure have only to be rejected."
9. For the reasons recorded above, I do not find any infirmity in the action of the respondent-Commission in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for the post of President of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum on the ground that his application was not received through proper channel and prior to the last date as was the requirement in terms of the specific stipulation contained in the advertisement.
10. No merit. Dismissed.
( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA )
April 30, 2013 JUDGE
SRM
Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter? Yes/No