Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.
Mohan Jee Yadav, son of Raghunandan Yadav, resident of village-Arout, P.S. Rosera, District-Samastipur.
Versus
State Of Bihar & Ors.
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12503 of 2011
Decided on: 26.09.2011
Postal Delay - Application Rejection - The court sympathized with the petitioner but held that the commission had no role in the postal delay and could not extend the application deadline. The petitioner was advised to seek compensation from the postal department under the Consumer Protection Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's application for a preliminary examination was rejected by the Staff Selection Commission due to a postal delay, despite being dispatched on time.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the commission could not be held responsible for the postal delay and could not extend the application deadline. The petitioner was advised to seek compensation from the postal department.
Issues: The main issue was the rejection of the petitioner's application due to a postal delay and the petitioner's plea for the court to direct the commission to accept the application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the commission could not be compelled to accept the application delivered beyond the cut-off date due to a postal delay, and advised the petitioner to seek compensation from the postal department.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to take action for damages or compensation under common law or the Consumer Protection Act.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the Staff Selection Commission as well as Government of India representing the Postal Department as also learned counsel for the State.
2. The reason for the petitioner to file present writ application is that his application for participation in the graduate level preliminary examination has been refused or rejected by Staff Selection Commission because his application has been received after the final cut off date i. e. 31.5.2011.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he had sent the application with postal order by speed post from Rosera Post Office on 27.5.2011 but for the reasons best known to the postal authorities, such application could be delivered only on 5.6.2011. The Commission refused to accept the application since it was received beyond the cut-off date.
4. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that blame cannot lie on him because dispatch is not disputed which is dated 27.5.2011 and if the postal department let him down, he should not be prevented from having a go at the examination or his career jeopardized.
5. Even though, the court has sympathy with the petitioner but there is no mechanism by which last date for acceptance of form or application as such can be extended when commission had no role to play in such delay. If there is failure on the part of postal authorities to deliver the application within a reasonable time frame, the petitioner has a claim against the postal department for appropriate compensation under the Consumer Protection Act. But giving a direction for accepting the form of the petitioner, which admittedly was delivered at the door step of the commission much beyond the cut-off date, would be uncalled for. The writ petition is dismissed. Liberty however, granted to the petitioner, if he wants to take action for damages or compensation either under common law or under special law including the Consumer Protection Act. He has freedom to do so.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
