Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sandeep Singh Parmar vs Post Graduate Institute Of Medical ... on 6 May, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-6716-2019 (O&M)
Reserved on : 23.04.2024
Pronounced on : 06.05.2024
Sandeep Singh Parmar
. . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
PGIMER, Chandigarh and another
. . . Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Argued by: Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Avinit Avasthi, Advocate
for respondent No.1 - PGIMER, Chandigarh.
Mr. Narender Kumar Vashist, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
CM-2397-CWP-2024
This is an application filed under Section 151 CPC for placing
on record the brief synopsis in the shape of affidavit of the applicant-
petitioner.
For the reasons recorded in the application, same is allowed and
the brief synopsis in the shape of affidavit dated 08.02.2024 of the applicant-
petitioner, is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Office to tag the
same at appropriate place.
CM stands disposed of.
CWP-6716-2019
1. By way of present writ petition, Petitioner - Sandeep Singh
CWP-6716-2019 (O&M) -2-
Parmar, aged 26 years, has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of
Certiorari, for quashing of the letter dated 16.02.2019 (Annexure P-7),
issued by respondent No.1 - Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education
and Research, Chandigarh (PGIMER), whereby, application forwarded by
the petitioner for scrutinizing the documents, has been dismissed, on the
ground that there is a postal delay.
Besides, petitioner has also prayed that by quashing of the letter
dated 16.02.2019 (P-7), his candidature for the purpose of joining the
selection process on the post of 'Staff Car Driver', in pursuance to Advt. No.
PGI/RC/081/2018/4305, dated 18.07.2018 (Annexure P-1), be also ordered
for it reconsideration, as a genuine applicant/candidate.
Chief Post Master General, Chandigarh, Speed Post Centre,
Sector 17, Chandigarh has been impleaded as party - Respondent No. 2 by
the petitioner.
2. Facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are as
follows:
Respondent No.1 - PGIMER, Chandigarh, invited online
applications from the Citizens of India for recruitment of various Group 'A',
'B' & 'C' posts on regular basis, vide Advt. Dated 18.07.2018 (Annexure P-
1). For the purpose of generation of the Challan/online application, closing
date was fixed as 16.08.2018, and the online application was required to be
submitted by 18.08.2018.
In the said advertisement, applications for filling up the seven
posts of Group 'C' of the 'Staff Car Driver Ordinary Grade' were also
published at Sr. No.15, wherein, essential qualifications for the said post
were also detailed. For convenience, the relevant extracted part of the
CWP-6716-2019 (O&M) -3-
advertisement, bearing the required qualification/experience for the post of
'Staff Car Driver Ordinary Grade' is reproduced here under also:-
Sr. Name of the Post(s) Qualification/Experience
No.
15. Staff Car Driver Essential:
Oridinary Grade i) Matriculation or its
equivalent.
ii) Possession of valid
Driving Licence for
driving heavy vehicles.
iii) Knowledge of motor
mechanism (The
candidate should be
able to remove minor
defects in vehicles).
iv) Experience of driving
motor vehicles
(including heavy
vehicles) for 3 years.
Desirable:
Three years service as Home
Guard/Civil Volunteer.
As per the advertisement, total 7 posts of "staff car driver
ordinary grade" were to be filled. Out of the said 7 posts, 4 posts were for
Unreserved (UR) category, 1 post for Scheduled Caste (SC) category and 2
posts were meant for Other Backward Classes (OBC) category.
Petitioner being suitable and eligible candidate under the
Unreserved category (UR) applied for the post of 'Staff Car Driver Ordinary
Grade' vide application No.58620180000595.
3. After examining the applications received online, eligible
candidates were called for written examination which was conducted on
30.12.2018. Admit cards for the written examination were issued on the
website of the Respondent No. 1 and petitioner was allotted Roll No. 81306
(Annexure P-3). On the basis of the issuance of the roll number and the
admit card, petitioner appeared for the written examination on 30.12.2023
and same was qualified by the petitioner and said fact was made clear from
CWP-6716-2019 (O&M) -4-
the result of the written examination displayed on 02.01.2019 on the official
website of respondent No.1, as informed also through result notice dated
02.01.2019.
4. As per the result notice, candidates who qualified the written
examination had to submit all the prescribed/required documents by
22.01.2019. For the said purpose, petitioner sent all the prescribed
documents via speed post, booked on 08.01.2019. However, the said speed
post was received at the concerned section/office of Respondent No. 1 on
25.01.2019 i.e. beyond the last date.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that he had booked the Speed post
well within time that is around 14 days prior to the prescribed last date of
submission and it is only because of the fault of the postal authorities, delay
in reaching of documents has been caused. Even, postman - Manish Kumar,
himself, sent one letter dated 25.01.2019 (Annexure P-6), to the
Superintendent, Recruitment Cell, PGIMER, Chandigarh, admitting his fault
and explaining the cause of the delay. In the said letter, it is mentioned that
Speed Post Article No.EH259910466IN, was mistakenly taken by him to the
Dental Department, under the impression that the same pertains to the
Dental Department recruitment. However, said parcel was refused by the
said Department and returned. Thus, due to the fault committed by Postman,
speed post Article did not reach the Recruitment Cell within prescribed time
though had reached to the Dental Department of PGIMER (respondent
No.1), despite the same being booked on 08.01.2019, itself at the Head
Post Office at Jind.
6. In response to the application of the petitioner and the letter
addressed by the Postman, Respondent No.1, addressed a communication
CWP-6716-2019 (O&M) -5-
through its letter No. PGI/RC/2019/725, dated 16.02.2019, informing therein
that the application of the petitioner was received by it along with
clarification dated 25.01.2019, which in fact, is written by the postman,
confessing his unintentional fault, which led to the delayed delivery of
Speed Post Article No. EH259910466IN, to the Administrative Office,
Recruitment Cell. However, after being considered, same has been rejected
by the Competent Authority on the ground that in the result notice, it was
clearly stated that "the Institute would not be responsible for postal delay
due to any reason". Therefore, application received after the due date fixed
in this regard i.e. 22.01.2019, was not even considered for further process of
recruitment and has been thus, rejected.
7. Said decision is assailed by the petitioner by way of present writ
petition, before this Court.
8. On 13.03.2019, while issuing notice of motion, Coordinate
Bench of this Court, passed the following order:-
" CWP NO. 6716 OF 2019
SANDEEP SINGH PARMAR
VS
PGIMER AND ANOTHER
Present : Mr. Trishu Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter-alia,
contends that the petitioner applied for the post of Staff Car
Driver Ordinary Grade and pursuant thereto, qualified the
written examination, as reflected from the result Annexure P-
4. He further submits that pursuant thereto, the petitioner sent
the requisite documents, for which cut off date of submission
was 22.01.2019, well in advance vide speed post dated
CWP-6716-2019 (O&M) -6-
08.01.2019 (Annexure P-5). However, due to the fault of
Department of Postal Services, the speed post consignment
was delivered one day after the cut off date i.e 23.01.2019.
The petitioner approached respondent No.1 along with
clarification/confession of the post-man, admitting his mistake
for delaying the delivery to respondent No.1. Notwithstanding,
vide impugned letter/ order dated 16.02.2019 (Annexure P-7),
the documents submitted by the petitioner have not been
accepted by respondent No.1, on account of delay of one day.
Notice of motion.
Mr. Praveen C. Goyal, Advocate, has appeared
on behalf of respondent No.2 and seeks time to file reply.
Adjourned to 22.04.2019.
Dasti process qua respondent No.1.
In the meanwhile, one post of Staff Car Driver
shall be kept vacant by respondent No.1, subject to final
outcome of the present writ petition.
(ARUN MONGA)
JUDGE
MARCH 13, 2019"
Thus, one post of 'Staff Car Driver' was ordered to be kept
vacant by Respondent No. 1, subject to the final outcome of the present writ
petition.
9. Both the respondents filed their replies, which are available on
the record for perusal. Respondent No.1 - PGIMER, Chandigarh, in its
reply/written statement took a specific stand that "the application was
received in the office of the answering respondent on 25.01.2019 (after due
date of offline applications i.e. 22.01.2019), therefore, his candidature was
rejected, and his offline application/documents were not considered for
further recruitment process."
CWP-6716-2019 (O&M) -7-
10. Further, in the reply of respondent No. 1, it has also been
clarified that the eligibility of the candidates with respect to their educational
qualifications was not done prior to the written examination. Before the
written examination, only eligibility of the candidates for written
examination was determined, on the basis, whether or not, a candidate had
deposited requisite application fee etc. Candidates so declared provisionally
eligible, were allowed to appear in the written examination held on
30.12.2018.
However, there is no dispute that on the basis of the written
examination held on 30.12.2018, name of the petitioner was shortlisted and
his name was displayed in the list published on the official website of
respondent No.1 on 02.01.2019.
In that result notice, it was mentioned that the application(s)
along with requisite documents/testimonials of the shortlisted candidates
should reach respondent No.1 by 22.01.2019.
Since, petitioner failed to submit his application by due date i.e.
22.01.2019, his candidature was rejected for consideration for further course
of recruitment.
11. As per pleaded case of respondent No.1, along with written
statement, copy of the result notice dated 02.01.2019 (Annexure R-1), has
also been appended, wherein, regarding the candidates who have qualified
the written examination, following instructions were mentioned for its
compliance:-
" Therefore, all the shortlisted/qualified candidates are
informed that they have to apply afresh in the prescribed
application form which can be downloaded from PGI website
www.pgimer.edu.in and send the same alongwith all
CWP-6716-2019 (O&M) -8-
certificates duly attested by the Gazetted Officer so as to
check their eligibility for the above said posts.
All columns of the application form are to be filled in
and no column should be left blank. No further addition or
deletion in the application form will be allowed. Entries filled
in the application form, duly supported by the relevant
certificates will only be considered. The applications complete
in all respect and accompanied with all the certificates must
reach the Administrative Officer, Recruitment Cell, PIMER,
Sector 12, Chandigarh - 160012 through speed
post/registered post/by hand on or before 22.01.2019 upto
4:00 PM. No application received after this date i.e.
22.01.2019 will be entertained and candidature of such
applicants will be treated as cancelled. The candidates are,
therefore, advised to apply as soon as possible so that their
applications must reach the Recruitment Cell of PIMER,
Chandigarh well before the last date. The Institute would not
be responsible for postal delay due to any reason. The
envelop carrying the application alongwith testimonials must
be clearly subscribed in capital letters the name of the post
applied for i.e. Computer Programmer and Staff Car Driver
Ordinary Grade, as the case may be.
On receipt of applications of the shortlisted
candidates, the scrutiny of these applications will be done for
verifying the eligibility of the candidates for the post by the
Scrutiny Committee of the Institute. The scrutiny/eligibility
will be determined as per the Recruitment
Rules/guidelines/detailed information as notified in the
advertisement and the documents submitted by the candidates.
No further correspondence will be entertained in this regard
and no document will be entertained later. The candidates
will be selected on merit basis and the list of selected
candidates will be displayed on the Institute's website i.e.
www.pgimer.edu.in. Therefore, candidates are advised to visit
PGI website www.pgimer.edu.in frequently. For any query,
CWP-6716-2019 (O&M) -9-
candidate may contact Administrative Officer, Recruitment
Cell personally or through Tel. No.0172-2755579 on any
working day between 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM."
Relevant part to be noticed from the result notice is that
"applications complete in all respect and accompanied with all the
certificates must reach the Administrative Officer, Recruitment Cell,
PGIMER, Sector 12, Chandigarh - 160012 through speed post/registered
post/by hand, on or before 22.01.2019, upto 4:00 P.M. No application
received after this date i.e. 22.01.2019, will be entertained and candidature
of such applicants will be treated as cancelled.
Here, it needs to be clarified that in the Advertisement
No.PGI/RC/081/2018/4305, dated 18.07.2018, only the last date of
submission of application form through online process, was mentioned but
there was no date fixed or mentioned about the written examination or
submission of offline application with the documents after shortlisting of the
candidates by conducting the written examination.
12. While taking the above-said defense, respondent No.1 relies
upon a judgment passed by this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
titled as Dr. Jayanta Samanta vs. Director, PGI, Chandigarh and others
(CWP-22228 of 2017), decided on 03.11.2017 and submits
that the facts in the case at hand are similar to the facts in the judgment cited.
13. For opposing the prayer and contention of the petitioner,
counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - PGIMER, Chandigarh,
submits that right of the petitioner stands extinguished in view of the
judgment of the Full Bench of this Court rendered in Rahul Prabhakar vs.
Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar, 1998 AIR (P&H) 18 : Law
CWP-6716-2019 (O&M) - 10 -
Finder Doc Id #20114, and also in view of the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Single Bench in Dr. Jayanta Samanta's case (supra).
14. It is also borne out from the result notice that on receipt of the
application and the required documents, applications of the shortlisted
candidates from the written examination, were to be scrutinized by the
Scrutiny Committee of the Institute for the purpose of verification of the
eligibility of such candidates.
15. Based on the pleadings raised in the writ petition, counsel for
the petitioner submits that there being no fault on his part, his application
should be considered for the recruitment process, by scrutinizing his
documents, for the one post kept vacant at the instance of the interim order
dated 13.03.2019, of this Court.
There is nothing to refer that at any point of time, said interim
order was ever sought to be modified by respondent No.1 or has been
modified by the Court on its own. Therefore, for the purpose of deciding the
right of the petitioner in the present writ petition, the Court is proceeding
further by keeping the said aspect also in mind.
16. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the application
and the relevant documents vide consignment No.EH2599110466IN, was
booked for Speed Post at Chang Sub Office (S.O) on 08.01.2019 at 12:07:09
by mentioning the outstation Pin Code as 160012. As per the track record
appended with the present petition, said consignment reached the delivery
location i.e. Sector 12, Chandigarh Sub Office (S.O), on 23.01.2019 at
14:37:00.
From the track record, it is further revealed that during this
journey of the parcel, at the first instance, it had reached to National Speed
CWP-6716-2019 (O&M) - 11 -
Post Hub Chandigarh (NSH Chandigarh) on 10.01.2019 at 16:15:30.
Thereafter, the parcel ultimately reached Village Kharak Kalan S.O. (Sub
Office) on 23.01.2019, obviously, for its return journey, and thereupon, it
was ultimately delivered on 23.01.2019 itself at Sector 12, Chandigarh S.O.,
which initially was booked for Village Chang S.O.
17. In support of the stand taken by petitioner, Respondent No. 2 -
Chief Post Master General, Chandigarh Speed Post Centre, Sector 17,
Chandigarh, has filed a reply in the shape of an affidavit of Mr. Manoj
Kumar, Senior Superintendent and took a specific stand that the speed post
Article No. EH259910466IN was delivered to Respondent No. 1 on
18.01.2019 itself, but instead of delivering it to the Recruitment Cell, it was
delivered in the Oral Health Department, PGI, where the date of recruitment
had expired on 08.01.2019. Therefore, Oral Health Department returned the
application. As per the stand taken by Respondent No. 2 in the written
statement, there cannot be any dispute that the parcel reached to the primary
Institute i.e PGIMER, Chandigarh well within time. However, because of
the mistake of the Postman, it was taken to Oral Health Department of PGI,
Chandigarh itself. Thus, either the parcel could have been received by the
Oral Health department for its further transfer to the concerned section or the
postman could have been guided properly to ensure timely delivery of parcel
to the concerned section.
Thus, as per the stand of Respondent No. 2, there can't be any
dispute that the article reached in the premises of PGIMER, Chandigarh on
18.01.2019 itself i.e. much prior to 22.01.2019 (last date for submitting the
application) for the post in question. For reference, unchallenged preliminary
submissions in the reply of Respondent No. 2, are reproduced herein-below:-
CWP-6716-2019 (O&M) - 12 -
"PRELIMINARY SUBMISSION
That the present writ petition is not maintainable
because no injustice caused to the petitioner. That the grouse
of the petitioner is that the respondent no 1 did not entertain
the candidature of the petitioner because the documents of the
petitioner were not submitted before the last date of
submission. In fact the speed post article no EH259910466IN
was present to be delivered before the respondent no 1 on
18.01.2019 much before the last date of submission of the
documents by the petitioner i.e. 22.01.2019 but the officials of
the respondent no 1 refused to take the delivery of the above
mentioned articles from the postman serving in the office of
respondent no 2 by saying that last date was over whereas the
last date of submission of the article was 22.01.2019. So,
there is no fault on the part of any of the official of the
respondent no 2. Recruitment process was going on at PGI in
two Departments i.e Oral health department and Recruitment
cell PGI and last dates for receiving applications were 08-01-
2019 and 22-01-2019 respectively. The articles of both
Departments were identical and were being received in huge
quantity on daily basis during recruitment period. Moreover,
the articles belongs to same institution i.e PGI, Chandigarh. If
the official of the Oral Department, PGI (Respondent No. 1)
had guided the postman properly, the article in question might
have delivered in the Recruitment cell timely. The staff of
respondent No. 1 could have received the article and transfer
it internally to the concerned section of their office too. The
respondent No. 1 did not opt for any of the two means and
simply took the articles from the postman and returned after
checking the covers of the articles by saying that the date of
these articles is over. Furthermore when the sender
approached with the returned article to the respondent No. 2,
as a good will gesture liaison was made with the office of
respondent No. 1 and the official of the respondent no 2 duly
delivered the article of the petitioner to the respondent no 1
CWP-6716-2019 (O&M) - 13 -
on 25.01.2019 which was duly accepted by the respondent no
1. If there was any dispute regarding submission of the
documents then that is between the petitioner and respondent
no 1 and if respondent no 1 accepted the submission of the
petitioner and accepted the documents of the petitioner then
respondent no 2 would have no objection."
18. Before proceeding further, the relevant selection process meant
for the post, as appended with the present writ petition, is reproduced
hereunder:-
"C. SELECTION PROCEDURE:-
After the closing of last date of applications, the
eligibility of the candidates for written examination will be
based on i) whether the candidate has deposited the requisite
application fee in the bank or not?, ii) whether after
depositing of free in the bank it has been entered and updated
in the application form or not? Iii) after reconciliation with
the bank statement.
NOTE: If all the above three conditions are affirmative
then the candidate is provisionally eligible. If
the candidate doesn't fulfill any of the three
conditions, he/she is not eligible.
The eligibility of the candidates regarding educational
qualification, age etc. will not be checked at this stage
because no certificates/documents are called from the
candidates alongwith application forms. These candidates
are required to sit in the written examination, which will be
held in Chandigarh only. The Date of Examination, Centre
of Examination, Roll Number and Instructions for
candidates etc. will be intimated to the candidates in Admit
Cards which will be available on the website of the PGIMER
i.e. www.pgimer.edu.in.
xx xxx xx xxx
xx xxx xx xxx
CWP-6716-2019 (O&M) - 14 -
FOR GROUP 'B' (non-gazetted) & GROUP 'C' POSTS
(Sr.No.5 to 18):-
The written examination in English language only
would be of 105 minutes (five minutes for biometric
capturing) duration and will consist of 100 questions (each
question shall be of one mark). There will be a negative
marking to the extent of 0.25 marks per question for a wrong
response. On the basis of written examination, candidates,
three times of the vacancies advertised will be shortlisted on
merit for further selection procedure. However, for the posts
of STAFF CAR Driver Ordinary Grade (Sr.No. 15) and
Security Guard Grade-II (Sr.No. 18), this will be five times of
the vacancies advertised. During the examination, the
candidates will be required to undergo biometrics so as to
ascertain any impersonation in the examination. The
shortlisted candidates will be required to apply afresh on a
given application format which will be made available on the
website of the Institute (at the time of declaration result of
written examination) alongwith all the
certificates/documents/testimonials etc. It is made clear that
merely appearing and qualifying the written examination for'a
post does not make a candidate eligible or confer any right of
his/her being selected for any post which he/she has applied
for.
Based on these documents submitted by the
shortlisted candidates, the applications alongwith supported
documents will be scrutinized as per Recruitment Rules of the
post and the prescribed qualification, experience etc. A
candidate who will be found eligible by the Scrutiny
Committee, his/her result will be compiled provisionally and
candidates in merit list including those in waiting would be
called to appear personally for document verification on a
day and time to be intimated to them. The candidates who
will be found eligible after document verification, their final
CWP-6716-2019 (O&M) - 15 -
merit list will be prepared alongwith a waiting list thereof
based on the marks obtained by the candidates in the written
examination. The minimum qualifying marks will be 40% for
General category and 35% for SC/ST/OBC category. As the
Government of India has dispensed with the holding of
interview for Group 'B' and 'C' (non-gazetted) posts, there
will be no interview for these posts and the candidates will be
selected on the basis of merit in the written examination only.
SKILL TEST:-
For the following posts, skill test/physical test will also be
conducted for the candidates) shortlisted in the written
examination:-
1. Staff Car Driver Ordinary Grade (Sr.No.15):-
A driving test as mentioned above (page no.6) will be
conducted to ascertain the knowledge of driving, motor
mechanism and or removing minor defects of the
vehicles.
2. Security Guard Grade-ll (Sr.No.18):-
Physical test on the parameters as mentioned above
(page no.788) will be conducted."
19. From the pleadings raised by the parties through the writ
petition, written statement of both the respondents and affidavit dated
07.02.2024, none of the pleaded fact is in dispute. For the sake of
convenience, relevant dates with events are presented in a tabular form:-
18.07.2018 Vide Advertisement
No.PGI/RC/081/2018/4305, dated
18.07.2018, 7 posts of Staff Car Driver
(Orindary Grade) were advertised. In
pursuance to which, petitioner applied for
the said post.
30.12.2018 In pursuance to the advertisement dated
18.07.2018, petitioner was called for
written examination on 30.12.2018, for
the post of Staff Car Driver (Ordinary
CWP-6716-2019 (O&M) - 16 -
Grade).
02.01.2019 Result of the written examination dated
30.12.2018, declared on 02.01.2019.
As per result, total 37 candidates
including the petitioner were qualified and
shorted listed for the post of Staff Car
Driver (Ordinary Grade). Name of the
petitioner finds mention at Sr. No.14 of the
short listed candidates.
22.01.2019 As per the result notice dated 02.01.2019,
it was specifically mentioned therein that
applications complete in all respect and
accompanied with all respects, should
have reached the Administrative Officer,
Recruitment Cell, PGIMER, Sector-12,
Chandigarh through Speed
Post/Registered Post/By Hand, on or
before 22.01.2019 upto 4:00 PM. It was
clearly mentioned therein that no
application received after due date i.e.
22.01.2019, would be entertained and
candidature of such applicant would be
treated as cancelled.
25.01.2019 Out of 37 candidates, 36 candidates had
submitted their offline applications on or
before the last/due date i.e. 22.01.2019,
however, offline application of the
petitioner was received in the office of
respondent No.1 - PGIMER, Chandigarh,
vide Diary No.425, dated 25.01.2019, i.e.
after the due date i.e. 22.01.2019, and
thus, same was rejected by the concerned
authority.
16.02.2019 The Recruitment Cell, vide letter dated
16.02.2019 (P-7) had informed the
petitioner regarding rejection of his
offline application.
20. Let this Court firstly; proceed with the factual situation of the
Rahul Prabhakar's case (supra). In that case, for conducting Common
Entrance Test (CET), 1997 for admissions to the Engineering Course,
Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar issued one prospectus on
17.03.1997. It was specifically mentioned in the prospectus that application
forms duly filled should reach to the Coordinator last by 5:00 P.M. on
CWP-6716-2019 (O&M) - 17 -
21.03.1997. However, application of the petitioner - Rahul Prabhakar
reached to the University on 25.03.1997 i.e. four days later to the last date
i.e. 21.03.1997. Petitioner therein submitted a representation dated
09.04.1997 which was rejected. When the said order passed by the
University was assailed by the petitioner therein through a writ petition
before this Court, matter was referred to the Full Bench, wherein, after
discussing the other judgments, Hon'ble Full Bench held that 'the cut off
date fixed should be imperative and certain. It cannot be varied according
to the whims and fancies of the Authorities. If it is made variable, we are
clear in our minds that it will lead to injustice, arbitrariness and unfair
results. Applications for admission can be sent by post, by courier or can be
delivered by hand. The date with which we are concerned is the date of
receipt of the application by the Authorities. The date on which it is sent is
not of any consequence.'
It was further observed that 'in such a situation, our considered
opinion is that time and date for the receipt of the application fixed in the
prospectus/information brochure has to be strictly adhered to.'
21. While distinguishing with the judgment titled as Anurag
Sharma v. Regional Engineering College, Kurukshetra and othrs, 1996(1)
RSJ 795, wherein an opportunity was granted to the candidate, Hon'ble Full
Bench observed that 'We are not in a position to agree with the logic in
these observations. While preparing the prospectus, candidates who seek
admission have no say in the matter, but conditions incorporated therein
bind all the candidates. One, who is not complying with those conditions,
has to meet the consequences. No question of arbitrariness or unfairness
can be urged by the person who fails to satisfy the requirements mentioned
CWP-6716-2019 (O&M) - 18 -
in the prospectus.'
22. While dealing with the observations given in the other
judgments, Hon'ble Full Bench observed as under:
'....... Thus, it is settled law that the provisions contained in
the information brochure for the common entrance test 1997
have the force of law and have to be strictly complied with.
No modification can be made by the Court in exercise of
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Whenever a notification calling for applications, fixes date
and time within which applications are to be received whether
sent through post or by any other mode that time schedule has
to be complied with in letter and spirit. If the application has
not reached the Co-coordinator or the competent authority as
the case may be, the same cannot be considered as having
been filed in terms of the provisions contained in the
prospectus or Information Brochure. Applications filed in
violation of the terms of the brochure have only to be
rejected.'
23. While relying upon the observation made by Hon'ble the Apex
Court in Union of India v. Mohd. Nazim; AIR 1980 SC 431 that "post
office is not a common carrier, it is not an agent of the sender of the postal
article for reaching it to the addressee. According to their Lordships, post
office is really a branch of the public service providing postal services
subject to the provisions of the Indian Post Office Act, 1893 and the rules
made thereunder", Hon'ble Full Bench held that Entrustment of a postal
Article with the post office for transmission to the addressee does not give
CWP-6716-2019 (O&M) - 19 -
rise to a contractual relationship between the sender and the post office.
24. However, while reading the complete judgment of Rahul
Prabhakar's case (supra), this Court noticed in specific a fact in paragraph
No.9 that "if this application is directed to be treated as one filed within
time, what would happen to other 125 candidates?" Similar is the fact
recorded in another judgment relied upon by the respondent i.e. Dr. Jayanta
Samanta's case (supra), wherein, a fact has been mentioned that 15
applications were received after the due date, and all were rejected by the
respondent Institute.
25. Even on almost similar facts and circumstances, counsel for
respondent No.1 - PGIMER, Chandigarh, placed reliance upon the Full
Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case titled as
Rajendra Patel v. State of U.P and another, 2015(4) S.C.T. 681 : Law
Finder Doc ID #709947, wherein it was held that the condition imposed by
the recruiting agency needs to be scrupulously observed. Relevant
paragraphs No. 12, 13 & 22 of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced
herein-below:-
"12. Finding a conflict between the judgments of the
Division Benches, a reference has been made to the Full
Bench. For convenience of exposition, the question which
arises before the Full Bench is formulated as follows:
"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
CWP-6716-2019 (O&M) - 20 -
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."
13. In the present case, the facts which are not in dispute,
are as follows:
(i) All the candidates were duly notified by the
Commission of the four stages that were required to be
completed for submission of the application for
appearing at the main examination. The stages which
were indicated included the submission of an online
application by a stipulated date as well as the
submission of a hard copy together with all documents
at the office of the Commission by 27 October 2014;
(ii) The candidates were given an option of
submitting the documents either by registered post or of
delivering the hard copy of the application together
with all requisite documents by personal delivery at the
office of the Commission by the prescribed date; and
(iii) The candidates were placed on notice that all the
four stages that were contemplated would have to be
completed by the prescribed last date, failing which, the
candidature would stand rejected.
xx xxx xx xxx
xx xxx xx xxx
22. 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
CWP-6716-2019 (O&M) - 21 -
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."
26. Now dealing with the factual aspect of the present case,
undoubtedly, this Court is bound to follow the dictum laid down by the
Hon'ble Full Bench in Rahul Prabhakar's case (supra) as well as Rajendra
Patel's case (supra). Therefore, in respect to the facts recorded therein, there
cannot be any question to the view taken by their Lordships, while laying
down the law.
Thus, relying upon the law laid down by the Full Bench of this
Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) in Rahul Prabhkar's case (supra),
and then by the Allahabad High Court in Rajendra Patel's case (supra) as
well as by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court (Punjab and Haryana
High Court) in Dr. Jayanta Samanta's case (supra), it is firmly concluded
that there is no right of the petitioner to get his candidature re-considered as
per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court as well as
Hon'ble Allahabad High Court on the ground that his application was posted
through speed post well before time, but it reached to the concerned
department of PGI beyond the last date due to the fault of the postal
authorities. Thus, on law, no right accrues to the petitioner for
reconsideration of his candidature for the post in question.
CWP-6716-2019 (O&M) - 22 -
27. WHETHER APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER CAN
STILL BE CONSIDERED FOR ONE VACANT POST:
In the present case, the reason for reaching of the application,
somehow at belated stage, appears to be attributed solely to the Postal
Department. However, no doubt, the reaching of the application could be
ensured by the petitioner by delivering the same by hand.
From the facts explained in the written statement (notarized
affidavit dated 17.11.2020) of respondent No.2 and confession of the
postman, namely; Manish Kumar and the handwritten endorsement, shows
that application, in fact, had reached at the premises of
PGIMER,Chandigarh, much prior to the last date of receiving of the
application. But for the reason not known to anybody, it was delivered back
to the post office, from where it was sent, and thereafter, same was delivered
through the employee of respondent No.2, namely, Manish Kumar on
23.01.2019 at the correct address of respondent No.1.
While proceeding further, this Court would like to examine the
conduct of both the respondents, which are premier agencies of the Central
Government, to provide essential services to the public. There can't be any
dispute that Speed Post Article No. EH259910466IN, was booked by the
petitioner on 08.01.2019 at 12:07:09 hrs. at Chang Sub Office (S.O). As per
the facts detailed in the preliminary submissions of the reply by way of
affidavit dated 17.11.2020, of Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Chandigarh, on behalf of respondent No. 2, the aforementioned Speed Post
Article had reached to the premises of PGIMER, Chandigarh on 18.01.2019
itself, but it landed in the Oral Health Department of respondent No. 1 i.e.
PGIMER, Chandigarh. Since the last date for submitting the application for
CWP-6716-2019 (O&M) - 23 -
recruitment process, which was going on in the Oral Health Department,
PGIMER, Chandigarh, i.e. 08.01.2019, had expired, the officials of the Oral
Health Department, PGIMER, Chandigarh, refused to take the delivery of
the said article from the postman and the same was marked for its return
through the Postman - Manish Kumar. This fact has been corroborated by
the Postman in the confessional explanation dated 25.01.2019, submitted by
him to the Administrative Officer, Recruitment Cell, PGIMER, Chandigarh
(appended as Annexure P-6). Respondent No. 2 in its reply has further
stated that Oral Health Department of respondent No. 1 - PGIMER,
Chandigarh, could have transferred the application of the petitioner to the
concerned Section of the PGIMER, i.e. Recruitment Cell, for consideration
for the post in question. This fact, as pleaded by respondent No. 2, has not
been questioned/challenged by respondent No.1, by confirming it from the
Oral Health Department.
28. After noticing the fact that this Court by its order dated
13.03.2019 (referred herein-above) directed respondent No.1 to keep one
post of 'Staff Car Driver' vacant, subject to final outcome of the present writ
petition, Respondent No.1 was directed to file an affidavit that how many
applications have been received by respondent No.1 - PGIMER, Chandigarh
beyond the last date of receipt of applications i.e. 22.01.2019 vide order
dated 23.01.2024.
29. In response thereto, Mr. Mohinder Singh, Administrative
Officer, Recruitment Cell, PGIMER, Chandigarh, filed an affidavit dated
06/07.02.2024 (typed on 06.02.2024 and attested on 07.02.2024), explaining
therein that after declaration of result of the written examination, total 37
candidates, including the petitioner were shortlisted for the post of 'Staff Car
CWP-6716-2019 (O&M) - 24 -
Driver (Ordinary Grade)'. Name of the petitioner finds mention at Sr. No.14
of the said list. Later on, out of 37 candidates, 36 candidates had submitted
their offline applications, on or before the last date i.e. 22.01.2019.
However, application of the petitioner was received in the office on
25.01.2019. Therefore, broadly speaking, only the application of the
petitioner was received after the last date and no other application except of
the petitioner was left for its consideration, out of the total 37 shortlisted
candidates. Relevant paragraph Nos.4, 5, 6 & 7 of the aforesaid affidavit,
are reproduced as under:-
"4. That it is further submitted that in pursuance to the
advertisement dated 18.07.2018 followed by written
examination held on 30.12.2018, the result of written
examination was declared on 02.01.2019. As per the result
declared on 02.01.2019, a total of 37 candidates including the
petitioner were qualified and shortlisted for the post of Staff
Car Driver (Ordinary Grade. The list of shortlisted
candidates in all categories are annexed herewith as
Annexure R-1. The name of the petitioner finds mentioned at
Sr. No. 14 of the shortlisted candidates from the written
examination held on 30.12.2018 for the post of Staff Car
Driver (Ordinary Grade), General Category.
5. That as per the result notice dated 02.01.2019, the
applications complete in all respect and accompanied with all
certificates should have reached the Administrative Officer,
Recruitment Cell, PGIMER, Sector-12, Chandigarh through
Speed Post/Registered Post/By Hand on or before 22.01.2019
upto 4:00 PM. It was clearly mentioned in the result notice
dated 02.01.2019 that no application received after the due
date i.e. 22.01.2019, would be entertained and the
candidature of such applications would be treated as
cancelled.
6. That it is further submitted that out of 37 candidates, 36
CWP-6716-2019 (O&M) - 25 -
candidates had submitted their offline applications on/before
the last/due date i.e., 22.01.2019, however, the offline
application of the petitioner was received in
the Office of the undersigned vide Diary No. 425 dated
25.01.2019 i.e., after the due date i.e., 22.01.2019 and the
same was rejected by the Authority. Accordingly, the
petitioner was informed by the Recruitment Cell of PGIMER,
vide letter dated 16.02.2019 (Annexure P-7) with respect to
rejection of the application of the petitioner for the post of
Staff Car Driver which was advertised vide advertisement
dated 18.07.2018.
7. It is therefore respectfully submitted that out of a total
of 37 shortlisted candidates a total of 36 candidates had
submitted their offline applications on or before the last
date/due date i.e., 22.01.2019 and that it is only the petitioner
who submitted the offline application after the last date i.e.,
on 25.01.2019 after the due date of 22.01.2019. Therefore, no
other applications have been received by respondent No. -1-
PIMER beyond the last date of receipt of applications dated
22.01.2019."
30. With the said information supplied by the PGIMER,
Chandigarh, one fact is found on different footing from the referred
judgments wherein, the basic principle of law was laid down. The fact,
which is different is that in the Rahul Prabhakar's case (supra), there were
total 126 applications, which were received by the Punjab Technical
University, beyond the last date for receipt of the applications, and in Dr.
Jayanta Samanta's case (supra), there were total 15 applications, which
were received after the due date. However, in the present case, it is only the
petitioner whose application has been received late in the concerned
Department of PGIMER, Chandigarh (respondent No.1).
31. The basic purpose of laying down the law in Rahul
CWP-6716-2019 (O&M) - 26 -
Prabhakar's case (supra), is not to cause discrimination to the other
applicants, whose applications also stands rejected, because of receiving the
same, beyond the date for receipt of the applications, and those candidates
are not before the Court. Second reason is that permitting such practice
would amount to allow the unfair practice and arbitrariness on the part of
Recruiting Agency. If the said two reasons are looked into, and applied to
the facts and circumstances of the present case at hand, there is no such
situation. Rather, the Court is of the view that one seat is still lying vacant
and, in any case, would be filled up by Respondent No. 1 after the decision
of the present writ petition.
32. Thus, there can be two situations.
Firstly, if the petitioner is not afforded any right of
consideration of his application, said post would be contested
by remaining applicants, who are already in queue after clearing
the written examination and;
Secondly, in case, the petitioner is granted right of
consideration, he would be one more added candidate
contesting for the said vacant post.
In the second situation, right of no one will be prejudiced if the
petitioner herein is afforded a right to get his application considered, as in
that situation, he would be an additional candidate contesting for the one
vacant post. Rather, if the petitioner is not afforded right of consideration of
his application, legitimate right of the petitioner would get prejudiced,
without achieving any purpose.
33. From the advertisement/brochure dated 18.07.2018 (Annexure
P-1), a fact is born out that online applications from the general public were
CWP-6716-2019 (O&M) - 27 -
invited for filling up various posts of Group 'A', 'B' and 'C', on regular
basis. As per details of posts, in Group 'C', at Sr. No. 15, there is mention of
total 7 posts of 'Staff Car Driver Ordinary Grade', bearing the Post Code:
STCD/054. Out of total 7 posts, 4 posts belonged to Unreserved Category
(UR); 1 post for Scheduled Caste Category (SC); and 2 posts were reserved
for Other Backward Class Category (OBC).
34. In the present case, the petitioner is claiming his right of
consideration for recruitment to the post of Staff Car Driver Ordinary Grade,
against 4 posts of Unreserved Category (UR). During the course of hearing,
this Court was informed that out of said four posts, three have already been
filled. Therefore, the contest is left only for one vacant post, which has been
kept vacant in pursuance to the interim order dated 13.03.2019, passed by
this Court.
From the facts detailed in the earlier part of this judgement and
the stand taken by respondent No. 1, it becomes clear that after receipt of on-
line applications and short-listing through the written examination, for all 7
posts of "staff car drivers", only 37 candidates including the petitioner, were
found eligible, to be proceeded further for receiving of off-line applications
along with relevant documents/testimonials. Out of 37, already 36
candidates have participated in the process of recruitment and selection
process of three posts belonging to the Unreserved Category, has already
been completed. Therefore, in all eventuality, only one post of Staff Car
Driver Ordinary Grade is lying vacant under the order of this Court, and in
case, the said post is to be filled, the contest would be amongst 34
candidates, including the petitioner, and there is no one else who would be
left out resulting into any kind of injustice, prejudice or discrimination
CWP-6716-2019 (O&M) - 28 -
to him/her, because no one else, except 37 eligible candidates, have
cleared the written examination conducted for short listing the
candidates for the further course of recruitment.
Apart this, there is another aspect. The date of written
examination was not declared in the advertisement/brochure dated
18.07.2018 (Annexure P-1). In fact, in the entire advertisement dated
18.07.2018, except for the closing date for submission of 'online
applications', i.e. 18th August 2018, no other dates for various stages of the
selection process of any of the advertised posts, were given. Rather,
desirous applicants were asked to apply for the posts, who are eligible to
move online application, after acknowledging on their own the eligibility
criterion for the post to which any applicant/candidate wishes to apply.
Accordingly, the petitioner being fully eligible applied through online
application, and participated in the process of selection/recruitment for the
post in question.
35. As per advertisement (Annexure P-1), information, such as date
of examination, centre of examination, roll number and instructions for
candidates etc. was to be intimated to the candidates in 'Admit Cards, which
were to be made available on the website of the PGIMER i.e.
'www.pgimer.edu.in'. In other words, all such details were not there in the
advertisement, but were informed to all the candidates through the admit
cards. Even other dates were also not known before the date of conducting
of the written examination. While reading the documents appended with the
writ petition, and going deeper, it is found that after display of the result
notice dated 02.01.2019 (Annexure R-1), the eligible candidates were
informed to submit offline application to the Administrative Officer,
CWP-6716-2019 (O&M) - 29 -
Recruitment Cell, PGIMER, Sector 12, Chandigarh - 160012, through
Speed Post/Registered Post/By Hand, on or before 22.01.2019 upto 4:00
PM.
In other words, prior to the said result notice dated 02.01.2019
(Annexure R-1), it was never disclosed in the advertisement or any other
communication as a public document that the last date for receiving of the
offline application and documents is 22.01.2019. Impliedly, the result notice
dated 02.01.2019 is an information to the 37 candidates only, who were
short-listed and found eligible for consideration, for further selection process
of Staff Car Driver Ordinary Grade, under all the categories. As per the list
appended with affidavit dated 07.02.2024, total 21 candidates cleared the
test for unreserved category (UR) and petitioner's name is at serial No. 14
therein.
Therefore, as already discussed here-above, except the
petitioner, out of total 20 eligible candidates, there is no one else who could
not avail the chance of joining the process of selection for the post in
question. Thus, in case, petitioner finds an opportunity to rejoin the further
course of selection for one vacant post, no one's right is going to be affected,
prejudiced or discriminated.
36. In the nutshell, by observing in the foregoing paragraphs No.25
& 26, it is settled proposition of law that no definite right accrues to the
petitioner to claim that his application be considered as a valid one.
This Court leaves it open for respondent No.1 - PGIMER,
Chandigarh to take note of the circumstances, as noticed by this Court (in
paragraphs No.27 to 35), and then make an independent decision. If it so
wishes, it may give a chance to the petitioner to participate in the selection
CWP-6716-2019 (O&M) - 30 -
process for one vacant seat left under the order of this Court. However, it
will depend entirely on the pious discretion of the authorities of respondent
No.1 - PGIMER, Chandigarh, who may also proceed by seeking 'no
objection' from the other contestants/candidates, for one vacant post of Staff
Car Driver Ordinary Grade.
Accordingly, with the above-said terms, writ petition stands
disposed of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
May 06, 2024
J.Ram
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
