GANGULY, J.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 09. 09. 2008 passed by the Division Bench of High court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, lucknow in Special Appeal No. 513 (S/ s) 2008 whereby the learned Judges the division Bench were pleased to affirm the view taken by the Learned single Judge in judgment and order dated 18. 08. 2008 by which the Writ Petition No. 5554 (S/s) of 2003 filed by the appellant was dismissed.

2a. The material facts of the case are that information was circulated by the commandant IInd battalion, PAC Sitapur, 4th Respondent, on 10. 04. 2003 to all the branch In charge/commandant to make available the nominations of the constable having certain qualifications for the post of Armourer (herein after referred as said post ). It was made clear that applications of the interested candidates will be made available to the Head Office by 14. 04. 2003 and no application sent thereafter will be considered.

( 3 ) IT was also mentioned therein that a medical certificate from the Chief Medical Officer as per category A was required to be sent along with the application and no application would be accepted without the medical certificate.

( 4 ) THE appellant submitted his application along with educational qualification on 14. 04. 2003. The medical certificate admittedly was not attached with this application dated 14. 04. 2003 but the medical certificate was submitted on 15. 04. 2003. In his Writ Petition, the appellant stated that there was a gazetted holiday on account of ramnavami on 11th April, 12th April was closed for second Saturday, Sunday was on 13th April and Ambedkar Jayanti was on 14th April. As such from 11th April to 14th april 2003, the appellant could not get the medical certificate. He got the medical certificate on 15. 04. 2003 and submitted the same on 15. 04. 2003 itself. The appellant further stated that his name was not considered because he submitted his application on 14. 04. 2003 along with the educational certificates. However, even though he submitted his medical certificates on the next available day i. e. 15. 04. 2003, even then his application was not considered.

( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by this action of the respondent the appellant filed a writ petition no. 2657 (SS) of 2003 before the High court. The Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 14. 05. 2003 directed the Respondent No. 3-DIG, PAC Barielly section to pass a speaking order on the representation filed by the appellant. The substance of the said order is that since the appellant submitted his application with the educational qualifications on 14. 04. 2003 but submitted the medical certificate on 15. 04. 2003, the same could not be considered for the post of Armourer for non-production of medical certificate. It was stated in the impugned order of Respondent No. 2 dated 02. 07. 2003, the appellant is himself responsible for the delay in submission and as such his application is liable to be dismissed.

( 6 ) CHALLENGING the said order dated 02. 07. 2003, the appellant filed another Writ petition No. 5554 (S/s) of 2003. The said writ petition was also rejected on the same grounds on which the representation of the appellant was dismissed. The Appellate bench of the High Court also took the same view and dismissed the appeal by affirming the decision taken by the learned Single judge.

( 7 ) IT appears that both the learned Single judge and the Appellate Bench of the High court failed to take into consideration the provision of Section 10 of General Clauses act and the principles of equity which are embodied in the said provision.

( 8 ) THE provisions of Section 10 of General Clauses Act are set out below : -

"10. Computation of time.- (1) Where, by any Central Act or regulation made after the commencement of this Act, any act or proceeding is directed or allowed to be done or taken in any court or office on a certain day or within a prescribed period, then, if the Court or office is closed on