A candidate cannot claim relief for missing a recruitment examination due to a lack of postal communication if the advertisement specified that information would be provided via the notice board or website, and the candidate failed to remain vigilant.

Order on Board

1. Heard.

2. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief(s) :

“10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and quash the impugned order dated 21.08.2022 (Annexure P/1), in the interest of justice.

10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and direct the respondent no. 1 to 3 to conduct the examination afresh as per advertisement dated 06.01.2022 and law after duly communication the date of examination to the petitioner.

10.3 This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to pass an appropriate order or issue writ as deemed fit under the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. The facts in brief are that an advertisement was floated by respondent No.2 for various posts including two posts of Assistant Grade-III on 06.01.2022. It was specifically mentioned in the advertisement that applications for the posts would be sent through registered/speed post in the prescribed form along with necessary documents. As required two envelops affixed with Rs.25/- postal receipts were also annexed along with the application form by the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his application form and date of typing examination was scheduled on 21.08.2022. The admit cards were uploaded in the website of District and Sessions Court Koriya, Baikunthpur (C.G.). The petitioner did not receive postal communication, therefore, he could not participate in the skill test. Subsequently, result was declared and a select list was published on 21.08.2022. After publication of select list, the petitioner came to know that skill test has already been conducted. Thereafter, this petition was filed on 07.09.2022.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that according to the conditions enumerated in the advertisement, respondent No.2 was required to communicate date of examination through post. She would contend that as respondent No.2 failed to communicate the petitioner, he could not participate in the examination and thus, there was negligence on the part of respondent No.2. She would argue that respondent No.2 may be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner. It is also submitted that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to conduct a fresh examination.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Mukhopadhay, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 4 would oppose the submissions. He would submit that it was not mandatory to send admit card or intimation to the candidates through registered post or post. He would further submit that as per the conditions of the advertisement, the candidates would be communicated with separately and information would be affixed on the notice board of the Court. It is also contended that according to the conditions appended with the advertisement, candidate who did not receive any communication from respondent No.2 had liberty to approach the Selection Committee one hour prior to time scheduled for examination. Mr. Mukhopadhyay would argue that the petitioner is a resident of Ward No.20, Manendragarh, Koriya and his house is situated just behind Civil Court building. He was not vigilant and he never inquired after submission of application form, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Uttar Pradesh and Ot