SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(Pat) 2039

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI
Mohan Jee Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent


ORDER

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 mechani

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top