1994 Supreme(Mad) 798
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KANAKARAJ
R. Maheswari - Appellant
Versus
Secretary, Selection Committee, Tamil Nadu Professsional Courses, Madras and Another - Respondents
W.P. No. 15518 of 1994
Decided On : 05 October 1994
The rule regarding the last date for receipt of applications is meant for compliance and no exception can be taken to it on any ground, including postal delay.
Headnote:
ADMISSION TO COLLEGE - LAST DATE FOR RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS - INTERPRETATION - STRICT COMPLIANCE - DELAY IN RECEIPT OF APPLICATION - NO EXCEPTION - WRIT PETITION DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for admission to a college course. The last date for receipt of applications was 15-7-1994 at 5:30 p.m. The petitioner sent her application form by registered post on 14-7-1994, but it was received by the college only on 19-7-1994. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of her application.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner's application was rightly rejected as it was received after the last date. The court observed that the rule regarding the last date for receipt of applications is meant for compliance and no exception can be taken to it on any ground, including postal delay.
Issues: Whether the petitioner's application should be considered by the respondents or can be rejected as having been received beyond the last date.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rule regarding the last date for receipt of applications is meant for compliance and no exception can be taken to it on any ground, including postal delay. The court observed that if a candidate does not take the necessary precaution for delivering the copy of the application in time, she has to blame herself for the consequences.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
By consent the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
2. After completing her Higher Secondary Examination in March, 1993, the petitioner also improved her marks in Physics by taking an examination in March, 1994. In the year 1994 the petitioner appeared for the Tamil Nadu Professional Courses Entrance Examination. The petitioner applied for the first year M.B.B.S. Course in Physio Therapy and Occupational Therapy. The last date for issue of prospectus and application forms was 15-7-1994 and the last date for submission of applications was also 15-7-1994, 5.30 p.m. The petitioner is said to have sent her application form duly filled up, on 14-7-1994, from the Gingee Post Office. The petitioner has expected the application form to reach the first respondent by 5.30 p.m. on 15-7-1994. At the time when the respondents called for the candidates for counselling, the petitioner attended the office of the first respondent and found that her name did not find a place in the list of the candidates called for counselling. The petitioner also verified from the Kilpauk Post Office that the application form had been delivered, to the first respondent only on 16-7-1994. Though the respondents have not filed counter-affidavit, learned Government, Advocate has received written instructions and on the basis of such instructions it is stated that the application form was received only (on) 19-7-1994.
3. The only question that has to be decided in this writ petition is whether the application of the petitioner should be considered by the respondents or can be rejected as having been received beyond the last date. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws my attention to the notification issued in respect of the course in question. Clauses 9 and 10 are the relevant clauses. They are as follows:
"9. Last date for issue of prospectus/ application forms at the Government Institutions - 15th July 1994 5.30 p.m.
10. Last date for receipt of application form for M.B.B.S./B.D.S./Para Medical. Courses at the Selection Committee Office - 15th July 1994 at 5.30 p.m."
My attention has been drawn to the Prospectus where under the Head" Instructions to Candidates", it is stated that the completed application form with enclosures may be delivered in person or sent in the cover provided by Registered Post to the address given therein. One of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner can be disposed of at the outset. It is stated that the last date for issue of prospectus and application form is 15-7-1994, 5.30 p.m. and the last date for receipt of application is also 15-7-1994, 5.30 p.m. In support of the argument that the interpretation in such cases should be taken liberally and it cannot be taken as mandatory, reliance is placed on In re. Presidential Election. I am not inclined to accept, this argument for the simple reason that the petitioner admits that she had received the application form sufficiently earlier and she had to wait till 14-7-1994 because of her father's absence. Even as a pure question of law, for academic purpose, I do not accept that the provision in a prospectus or notification calling for application for admission to college or a course, should he treated as discretionary and all applications received even subsequent to that date should be considered. Such a proposition will lead to disastrous consequences. The observation of the Supreme Court were rendered in a totally different circumstances and cannot be applied to this case.
4. Reliance is next placed in Annada Prasad v. State, 1989 AIR(Orissa) 130. In this case it was laid down that once the Post Office is recognised as the agent for transmission of papers the applicant cannot be found fault with, so long as le had despatched the application by registered post in time. The Court had laid emphasis on the fact that the notice calling for admissions stipulated that the application form could only be sent by Registered Post and not by any other manner.