Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Susanta Das vs Punjab National Bank & Ors on 6 July, 2022
ML-55
06.07.2022
Ct. No.23
pg.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
WPA 10067 of 2022
Susanta Das
Vs.
Punjab National Bank & Ors.
Mr. Ram Krishna Roy
... For the petitioner
Ms. Parna Roy Choudhury
Ms. Payel Ghosh
... For the respondent Bank
Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on
record.
An advertisement for recruitment of Part Time
Sweeper in the Subordinate Cadre was published by
Punjab National Bank (in short "PNB") on 6th December,
2021. In the said advertisement, it was categorically stated
that a complete application along with requisite documents
shall have to reach the concerned office of PNB by 5.00
p.m. on 24th December, 2021. The mode of delivery of the
filled in application form under the said advertisement was
through Speed Post. The petitioner posted the application
on 20th December, 2021. The said application reached the
concerned office of PNB on 27th December, 2021. Since the
application was received by PNB beyond the last date
prescribed in the advertisement, PNB has not considered
the petitioner's application. The petitioner is aggrieved by
such act on the ground that the delay has been caused by
the postal authorities and, as such, the petitioner should
not be made to suffer for the same. The petitioner has
made a representation on 25th May, 2022, stating the fact
of delay as also the reasons for the same. The petitioner
has all along blamed the postal authorities for the delay.
The petitioner has relied upon a judgment reported
in (2015) 13 SCC 438 (Vrinda Pareek (Minor) Through
Guardian v. Union of India & Ors.) in support of his
contention that for the delay on the part of the postal
authorities, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer.
On behalf of PNB, it is submitted that the
advertisement categorically stipulated a cut off date and
time. It was also specifically mentioned in the
advertisement that the applications received after the cut
off date and time shall not be considered. PNB says that
since the petitioner's application admittedly reached
beyond 24th December, 2021, PNB was not required to
consider the same in view of the terms and conditions
stipulated in the advertisement.
The fact remains that there is no dispute that the
application was despatched on 20th December, 2021 as will
appear from the postal receipt annexed at page 20 of the
writ petition. 20th December, 2021 was a Monday and, as
such, there was four clear days between the date of
despatch and the cut off date. The petitioner cannot,
therefor, be blamed for having caused delay in despatching
the application. At the same time, the petitioner had made
representation to the concerned Bank after about six
months from the last date of submission of the application
form. The writ petition has been filed on 8th June, 2022.
The petitioner, according to me, has failed to approach this
Court immediately after coming to know about his
application having reached PNB on 27th December, 2021
instead of 24th December, 2021 to seek the reliefs which
disentitle him to get an immediate relief.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, without
ascertaining the present stage of the recruitment process
under the subject advertisement, no order can be passed.
Learned advocate representing PNB is, therefor,
directed to take specific instruction as to the present stage
of the recruitment process as on 8th June, 2022 as also as
on this date i.e., 6th July, 2022 and apprise this Court
about the same on the next date.
Let this matter appear in the Supplementary List
on 12th July, 2022 under the heading "For Orders".
(Arindam Mukherjee, J.)
