Tarun Kant Pant vs Uoi & Anr.
2013 Latest Caselaw 723 Del

$~6
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                     Date of Decision : February 13, 2013

+                        W.P.(C) 3624/2012

      TARUN KANT PANT                               ..... Petitioner
              Represented by: Mr.Rishi Sehgal , Advocate for Mr.Amit
              Khemka, Advocate.

                         versus

      UOI & ANR.                                    ..... Respondents
               Represented by: Mr.S.M.Arif, Advocate.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

WP(C) 3624/2012

1. The Staff Selection Commission issued a public employment notice in the Rozgar Samachar on March 19, 2011 pertaining to the Combined Graduate Level Examination 2011 intimating candidates that the selection process would be undertaken at a Tier-I and Tier-II examination. Vide Serial No.12 of the notice it was made known that Tier-I examination would be held for different batches on June 19, 2011 followed by June 26, 2011 and as regards Tier-II examination it was indicated to the candidates : 'Subject to unforeseen administrative/public exigencies, the Combined Graduate Level (Tier-II) Examination, 2011 is likely to be held on SATURDAY 3rd September 2011 and on SUNDAY, the 4th September 2011.' It was also indicated to the candidates that those who qualify at the Tier-I Examination information along with dates of Tier-II Examination would be made known through a notice to be published in the Employment News/Rozgar Samachar as also on the website of the Commission.

2. The petitioner successfully cleared the Tier-I Examination but could not take the Tier-II Examination which was held on September 03, 2011 and September 04, 2011 inasmuch as the Admit Card sent to him by the respondent was not received by him and as regards the writ petitioner claims that he kept on checking up the Employment News/Rozgar Samachar and did not come across any notice intimating the dates for the Tier-II Examination and by the time he realized he not having received the Admit Card, the dates for the Tier-II Examination were over.

3. The view taken by the Central Administrative Tribunal is that notwithstanding the respondent being negligent in not notifying in the Rozgar Samachar the dates for the Tier-II Examination, but having displayed on their website the said dates, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is a B.Tech. in Computer Science one could presume that he would be knowledgeable enough to be accessing the computer and the internet, and thus with a little care he could have checked the website of the respondent particularly keeping in view the fact that the advertisement issued by the respondent had clearly indicated to the candidates the dates for the Tier-II Examination being 3rd and 4th September 2011 but subject to unforeseen administrative/public exigencies. Meaning thereby, to a computer literate person enough information was made known that if all went well the Tier-II Examination would be held on the 3rd and 4th September 2011.

4. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal for the reason notwithstanding the respondent being at fault in not issuing a public advertisement notifying the dates for the Tier-II Examination, but the petitioner ought to have been vigilant himself keeping in view that the original advertisement inviting applications had made it known that subject to unforeseen circumstances the Tier-II Examination would be held on the 3rd and the 4th day of September 2011. The advertisement also made it known to the petitioner that information would be put on the website of the respondent. Thus, the petitioner is also in contributory negligence.

5. We cannot also overlook the fact that Admit Cards were sent by post to all successful candidates at the Tier-I Examination and the presumption would arise that the Admit Card of the petitioner was sent by post to him.

6. Counsel for the petitioner tries to raise the issue that it is obviously a case where the postal department is at fault. Well yes. Though not argued, we may extend the argument by stating that since the respondent used the post office to send the Admit Cards, the post office was acting as the agent of the respondent and thus the respondent would be liable for the act of its agent. But the same would take the writ petitioner nowhere for the reason we take judicial notice of the fact that the era of today i.e. the 21 st century, is the era of computer technology and we all live a part of our lives in the virtual world of the internet. We send and receive communications on the internet. More knowledge and information is accessed in today's world on the websites and less in the print media. We highlight once again that the petitioner is a B.Tech. in Computer Science. Surely, he would be having friends on the internet with whom he would be on chat. Presumably information on areas of his interest would be browsed by him for his own good. It is apparent that in the instant case the petitioner has been negligent.

7. In any case, by the time the writ petitioner awoke it was too late. He had missed the bus.

8. We accordingly dismiss the writ petition but refrain from imposing costs.

CM No.7607/2012 (Stay) Dismissed as infructuous.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(VEENA BIRBAL) JUDGE FEBRUARY 13, 2013 dk