2. All these three writ applications, involving same question with regard to delayed receipt of applications filed by the petitioner in response to the Advertisement No. 201/2010 for filling up the post of Assistant Teachers in the primary schools of the State of Bihar, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

Re. C.W.J.C. No. 19521 of 2013:

3. In this writ application, the 53 petitioners have moved this Court seeking a direction for appointment of the petitioners on the post of Assistant Teachers. All of them claimed to be having the requisite qualification as prescribed in the advertisement and it is their case that they had filed their applications within the prescribed period of time. In support of the said averments, they have also enclosed postal receipts of the registered/ speed post sent by them which are either in the date of 15.07.2010 or 16.07.2010, as contained in Annexure 1 series. One of the petitioners, namely, petitioner no. 3, Arvind Kumar, has also enclosed a letter of the Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Patna dated 09.05.2011 to establish that the registered letter sent by him, bearing No. 4278 dated 15.07.2010, was delivered in the office of Bihar Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') on 16.07.2010.

4. The further case is that when their names were not included in the panel, prepared by the Commission or by the Special Committee constituted by the Apex Court, they filed their representations and ultimately they have moved this Court in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in the order dated 18.07.2013 in SLP No. 26824 of 2012 and its analogous case.

5. This Court, on perusal of the materials on record, would firstly find that the petitioners have very conveniently suppressed the fact that the last date of receipt of applications was 19th July 2010. Clause 14 of the advertisement as with regard to the last date of filing of the applications, had read as follows:—

14- vafre frfFk& Hkjk gqvk vkosnu i= dsoy fucaaf/kr Mkd@LihM iksLV ls bl izdkj Hkstsa rkfd fnukad 19-07-2010 dks laè;k 6-00 cts rd lfpo] fcgkj deZpkjh p;u vk;ksx] iks-&osVujh dkWyst] iVuk&800014 dks vo'; izkIr gks tk;sA vU; fdlh Hkh ek/;e ls Hksts x;s vkosnu i= Lohdkj ugha fd;s tk;saxsA fu/kkZfjr vafre frfFk ds ckn izkIr gksus okys vkosnu vLohd`r dj fn;k tk;sxk vkSj blds fy, vk;ksx drbZ ftEesokj ugha gksxkA

6. In this context, from the documents appended with the writ applications, in support of sending of applications by the petitioners either through the registered post or speed post, all in the date of 15.07.2010 or 16.07.2010, it cannot be established that they were received in the office of the Commission on or before 6:00 P.M. on 19.07.2010.

7. The solitary evidence of the petitioner no. 3, by way of a letter of the Postal Department obtained by him under Right to Information Act, in fact, also does not in any way improve the case either of the petitioner no. 3 or others. From perusal of Annexure-2, the letter of the Postal Department dated 09.05.2011, it cannot be conclusively said that the application of the petitioner no. 3 sent through registered post has been received in the office of the Commission on or before 19.07.2010 inasmuch as that letter refers to distribution of registered letter no. 4278 on 16.07.2011. This Court would presume that there is an error in writing of the date on 16.07.2011 in the document contained in Anexure-2, but then what would still go against the petitioners is that the supporting documents of distribution of slip also do not bear either seal or stamp of the employee/officer of the Commission. In fact, such distribution slip in the date of 30.07.2010 does not inspire any confidence and, therefore, this Court will have no difficulty in accepting the submission of the