The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Commission was not obliged to accept applications received after the specified date and time, and the principle of 'Agency' invoked by the Hon’ble Supreme Court cannot be invoked in the present case.

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is filed by one Shubham Kumar, an applicant for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Road Construction Department or the Public Health Engineering Department of the State of Bihar pursuant to Advertisement No. 02/2011.

2. The learned single Judge has, under order dated 27th August 2013, referred the matter to the Division Bench. The matter at issue appears to be covered by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Manas Kumar Sinha Vs. Bihar Public Service Commission [2010 (2) PLJR 1008]. However, the learned single Judge was of the opinion that in the matter of Manas Kumar Sinha (Supra), the Bench had not considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Commr. of Income Tax, Bombay South, Bombay Vs. Messrs Ogale Glass Works Ltd., Ogale Wadi (AIR 1954 SC 429) and the judgment of the Orissa High Court in the matter of Dr. Annada Prasad Pattnaik Vs. State of Orissa & Ors. (AIR 1989 Orissa 130). The learned single Judge has, therefore, referred the matter to the Division Bench. The petition has thus been notified before us.

3. The matter at issue lies in a very narrow compass. Pursuant to the Advertisement No. 02/2011 published by the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’), the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) under the State of Bihar. The last date for receipt of the applications was 23rd June 2011. Applications were required to be sent either by Speed Post or by Registered Post. The petitioner has been non-suited on the ground that the application was not received by 23rd June 2011, the last date for the receipt of the application. The petitioner was accordingly informed under the letter dated 26th June 2012.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

5. We may note here that pending this petition, under orders made by this Court, the petitioner was allowed to take the competitive written examination and also to appear for interview. It is now the question of declaring the result of the writ petitioner.

6. Learned counsel Mr. S.D. Sanjay has appeared for the petitioner. Mr. S.D. Sanjay has submitted that the petitioner had sent his application by Speed Post on 21st June 2011. The said application ought to have been delivered to the Commission latest by 23rd June 2011. If the Postal Department, the chosen agency of the Commission, failed to deliver the application made by the petitioner by 23rd June 2011, the petitioner cannot be non-suited for late delivery of the application. He has submitted that the Postal Department being the agent and the Commission being the employer, the employer is responsible for the failure of the agent in performing its duty. He has next submitted that there is no machinery to verify the date of delivery to the Commission. He has submitted that had the Commission informed the petitioner about the late delivery soon after such delivery, the petitioner could have collected information from the Postal Department. However, in the present case, although the Commission had received the application made by the petitioner and had also acknowledged the receipt of the said application on 14th December 2011, it did not communicate the rejection of his application until 26th June 2012, more than a year after the petitioner sent the application to the Commission. After more than a year, the Postal Department did not have the relevant records. Thus, the petitioner is deprived of the opportunity to controvert the statement made by the Commission. In the submission of Mr. S.D. Sanjay, in any view of the matter, the petitioner has now taken the competitive written examination and has also appeared for the viva voce. The question is that of declaring the result. He has also submitted that against 145 vacancies advertised for the unrese