Hon’ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J.— Heard Sri V.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Shivi Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the record.

2. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged and with consent of learned counsel for the parties, present petition is being decided at the admission stage itself.

3. Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 26.10.2012 passed by the Director General, Medical and Health Services, U.P., Lucknow. A further prayer in the nature of mandamus has been made to direct the respondents to forthwith accord consideration to the petitioner for appointment as Pharmacist while undertaking proceedings for appointment of persons having obtained Diploma in Pharmacy in the 2000 and to grant appointment to the petitioner within a period to be specified by this Hon’ble Court.

4. Brief facts of the present case are that pursuant to advertisement dated 12.11.2007 the petitioner applied for appointment on the post of Pharmacist and sent his application form by registered post on 30.11.2007, however, on the basis of the information provided on the website the opposite parties informed that the application form of the petitioner is not available. Thus, the stand is that it was not received by the respondents department. Under such circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing Service Single No. 5030 of 2012 (Domesh Rajpoot v. State of U.P. and others), which was disposed of vide order dated 20.9.2012 with a direction to the opposite party No. 2 therein to decide the representation of the petitioner which was rejected by the respondent No. 2, the Director General, Medical and Health Services, U.P. Lucknow on the ground that his application was not received in the department and therefore, he cannot be considered for appointment on the post.

5. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has sent a duly filled up form by registered post, which was despatched on 30.11.2007 whereas the last date for submission of application form was 5.12.2007. The aforesaid registered letter was not returned undelivered to the petitioner, therefore, the same is to be treated as having been delivered to the authority concerned within time. It is submitted that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of non-receipt of the application form without verification of records. Citing the example of one Arvind Kumar Singh, whose claim was also rejected on the identical ground that no application form was received but he has been granted appointment on 10.1.2013, submission is that this itself proves that the ground taken in the impugned order is incorrect and false. It was further submitted that only one method i.e. submission of form by registered post/speed post/courier was provided and therefore, once the form was despatched within time, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the delay or non-receipt of the same and his application form is liable to be considered and he is entitled for grant of appointment pursuant thereto.

6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits the form submitted by the petitioner was not received by the respondents and therefore, the respondent authorities are not responsible and the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Insofar as the case of Arvind Kumar Singh is concerned, it is submitted that his case was duly considered and it was found that his application was received by the department and his form number was 01517 and it is only for this reason he was selected and he was issued appointment letter whereas the petitioner’s form was never received. It was further pointed out that apart from Arvind Kumar Singh, no appointment letter has been issued in favour of any other candidates as referred in paragraph 25 of the writ petition. Submission, therefore, is that present petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

7. I