Allahabad High Court
Mukesh Kumar Yadav vs State Of Up And 2 Others on 1 August, 2024
Author: Ajit Kumar
Bench: Ajit Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:123530
A.F.R.
Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9377 of 2024
Petitioner :- Mukesh Kumar Yadav
Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Thakur Prasad Dubey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Thakur Prasad Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Kumar Om, learned counsel for the U.P. Public Service Commission.
Petitioner before this Court has been an applicant against the advertisement issued for the post of Assistant Private Secretary in U.P. Secretariat advertised by the U.P. Public Service Commission on 19th September, 2023. It was prescribed under the advertisement that soon after submitting the online application, the printout of the hard copy of the said application shall be drawn by the petitioner and shall submit all the requisite documents regarding essential qualification on or before 5th April, 2024. It was further noticed under the advertisement that beyond the prescribed date no application will be entertained.
It is an admitted case of the petitioner that he could not submit the offline application form along with documents but he submits that since it was a sheer mistake inadvertently committed and since he had qualified the preliminary examination his candidature ought not to have been cancelled.
Per contra, it is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the U.P. Public Service Commission that under the advertisement there was a clear condition stipulated that till 5:00 pm on 5th April, 2024 the hard copy of the application should be submitted along with documents and if it were not submitted/ deposited in the office of Public Service Commission, then no further time will be allowed and no application shall be entertained subsequently.
Sri Om has argued that it is settled legal position that if a candidate fails to submit either application or requisite documents up to the last date prescribed under the advertisement, no further opportunity can be afforded to such candidate and for such negligence, may be due to inadvertence, subsequently application at the instance of such candidate cannot be allowed. He has also placed reliance upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rajendra Patel v. State of U.P. and another, AIR 2015 All 161 (FB), where a candidate failed to submit the offline form within the prescribed period. In the said judgment the Court has very categorically held that once the conditions stipulated under the advertisement are not fulfilled the department cannot be held liable for the same and candidate will have to suffer.
I have perused the records and find it to be an admitted position that petitioner in his knowledge failed to submit offline applications along with requisite documents to U.P. Public Service Commission till 5:00 of the last date i.e. 5th April, 2024. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Rajendra Patel (supra) was constituted to decide following reference:
"Where the Commission requires the submission of an online application as well as the submission of a hard copy of the application together with all the requisite documents by a prescribed last date and candidates are placed on notice that the candidature of an applicant who has failed to complete all the prescribed stages by the last date would be rejected, would it be a correct position in law to hold that the Commission is bound to entertain the application though the hard copy together with the documents was received after the last date prescribed merely on the ground that the documents had been dispatched before the last date of the receipt of the application."
Holding the judgment of Division Bench in the case of Nirbhay Kumar v. U.P. Public Service Commission (Special Appeal No.- 541 of 2014 decided on 30th May, 2014) not to be laying down correct law, the Full Bench (supra) making observations upon the principles of law on the point, concluded thus:
"Even on merits, we are not inclined to accept the correctness of the principle which has been laid down in Nirbhay Kumar (supra) that the submission of a hard copy of the application together with the accompanying documents is merely an act of confirmation of the application. The view which has found acceptance in Nirbhay Kumar (supra) would, in our view, dislocate the examination process and would render the process which is conducted by the Commission in a perpetual state of uncertainty. We are, with respect, in agreement with the view which was expressed by the Division Bench in Raj Narayan Singh (supra) decided on 18 February 2015.
Reliance was also sought to be placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Dolly Chhanda Vs Chairman, JEE. In Dolly Chhanda (supra), the Supreme Court has observed that the general rule is that while applying for any course of study or post, a person must possess the eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for such purpose either in the admission brochure or in the application form, as the case may be, unless there is an express provision to the contrary. The Supreme Court held that there could be no relaxation in the matter of holding the requisite eligibility qualification by the date fixed. However, depending upon the facts of the case, there can be some relaxation in the matter of submitting proof and it may not be proper to apply a rigid principle which may pertain to the domain of procedure. Hence, every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in the rejection of the candidature. These principles which have been laid down are not in dispute and they cannot be. However, the issue in the present case is whether the submission of a hard copy by the specified date together with all the documents was merely a matter of procedure. To accept the submission of the petitioner would, as we have held earlier, result in a situation where a candidate would be entitled to assert that despite the stipulated last date and a prescribed consequence of invalidation which has been drawn to the notice of the candidates, the Commission would be bound to scrutinise applications which are received together with the hard copies beyond the prescribed date. This, in our view, would not be permissible. We may also note that in a judgment in Secretary, UP Public Service Commission Vs S Krishna Chaitanya', the Supreme Court has held that the Commission cannot be directed to declare the final results when the application form of a candidate had not been received within the prescribed period.
For these reasons, we hold that where the Commission requires the submission of a hard copy of the online application together with all accompanying documents by a prescribed last date and has clearly placed the candidates on notice of the fact that an application which is submitted beyond the last date together with the prescribed documents would result in the invalidation of the candidature, the condition which has been imposed by the Commission would have to be scrupulously observed. It would not be open to the Court to hold that notwithstanding such a clear condition, an application which has not been received by the last date should be entertained. The Commission has given an option to candidates of submitting their applications in the hard copy by either of the two modes, namely by registered post or by personal delivery. A candidate who has opted for one of the two modes, is required to comply with the condition that all the requisite four stages are completed within the time stipulated."
Learned counsel for the petitioner could not cite any authority disputing the proposition of law as discussed in the aforesaid Full Bench judgment of this Court.
In view of the above settled legal position, I do not find any justification to grant indulgence in the matter.
Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 1.8.2024
Atmesh
