The court emphasized the importance of the mode of delivery of official communications and the presumption of receipt under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1977.

1. By medium of this Letters Patent Appeal, judgment dismissing the writ petition of the appellant is assailed on various grounds.

2. The flashback of the factual matrix for appreciating the controversy is imperative.

3. The admitted position, as emerged from the records, would suggest that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe (ST) category, as such has participated in the Recruitment process for the post of Constable (GD) in the CRPF in 8/9th month of the year 2011 at Rajouri. After having successfully qualified all the basic tests was subjected to medical examination at Group Centre CRPF Bantalab. In short, the appellant was selected. He claims to have represented before the authorities time and again but letter of appointment was not given to him. Finally, when he could not get any response from the respondent-authorities filed writ petition, SWP No. 1512/2009 seeking issuance of writ of mandamus so as to command the respon#31;dents to issue formal appointment order in his favour.

4. The respondents, in their reply, as filed before the Writ Court, have projected that appellant failed to report to Group Centre Rambagh, Srinagar on or before March 10,2006. Such failure resulted in cancellation of his appointment order. It is added that out of 110 candidates selected, 98 candidates reported and in their favour appointment orders were issued vide Special Force Order No. 12/2006 dated 22nd March, 2006. The appellant infact was not willing for enrolment. The letter of appointment was sent through post at his home address vide letter dated 13th February, 2006.

5. Learned Single Judge after noticing the submissions has concluded, that offer of appointment has been sent to the appellant through registered post, as is evident from the records. Same is presumed to have reached to him. It is his failure to respond which resulted in automatic cancellation of his offer of appointment, in terms of para 5 of the letter of appointment. Secondly, it has been opined that the appellant has spurned the offer, now after a gap of more than three years, shall not be entitled to claim discrimination. There could be no reason for the respondents in denying provisional appointment to the appellant. On such basis, petition has been dismissed.

6. The finding of the learned Single Judge that the letter of appointment has been sent to the appellant through registered post is not correct because Dispatch Register, as produced by learned counsel for the respondents, would suggest that the letter of appointment has been sent by ordinary post.

7. Perusal of the said Dispatch Register would reveal that the letter of appoint#31;ment had been sent to all them selected candidates by ordinary post, when it is so, drawing of presumption in terms of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1977 that the letter has reached to the addressee is impermissible.

8. There is no affidavit on the part of the Dispatcher that he had dispatched the letter (containing offer of appointment) to the appellant. The position is made suspicious, the letter of appointment, photo copy of which is placed on the Writ records is shown to have been dispatched through registered post. The words 'Registered Post' are recorded on the top of the said letter. When admittedly, the said letter has not been sent through registered post.

9. The opinion of the learned Single Judge that the appellant had approached the Court after a gap of more than three years, therefore, stand of the appellant after spurning the offer is untenable. The finding recorded is not correct because the appellant, in specific terms, has pleaded that he had approached the respondents time and again for order of appointment but was told that he would get it through post office. He had diligently followed his case and moved number of representa#31;tions. Positive assertion of the appellant is contained in para 5 of his memo of writ petition is not denied in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents., In reply to pa