# Pankaj Kumar Priyam v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 10 ILRA 1268
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-21
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 10907 of 2023
- **Bench:** Vikas Budhwar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pankaj-kumar-priyam-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49323
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

C.S.C.

Examination-Applied for teacher in Sanskrit
vidyalay-submitted his document before the
institution
so
specified
therein
-thereafter
triggered an Email to the District Inspector of
Schools before the last date-application through
registered post reached the destination on
24.06.2023-last
date
was
23.06.2023Candidature
of
the
petitioner
was
not
considered-post office acts as an agent of the
respondent-but the respondents cannot be
bound by any delay on the receipt of the
application-first requirement itself stood noncomplied -email of hard copy as the second step
is dependent upon the first step.

W.P. dismissed. (E-9)

Cases cited:

## Text

1268 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
stands fortified. So very strong and cogent
reasons must exist in interfering the
judgment of acquittal.

25. Thus, having considered the
matter in its entirety and in view of the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Ramesh's case (supra), Guru Dutt
Pathak's case (supra) and Sadhu Saran
Singh (supra), this Court finds that the
learned trial court's findings regarding
acquittal of accused/respondent herein are
based on proper appreciation and analysis
of evidence available on record which do
not, in any manner, appear to be
improbable or perverse.

26. Keeping in view the aforesaid
weakness of the prosecution case, as noted
by the court below, I am of the view that
the view taken by the court below was a
probable and logical view, which is based
on valid reasons. The judgment of the court
below cannot be said to be illegal, illogical
and improbable and not based on material
on record or is based on erroneous views
and is against the settled position of law.
So, this Court is satisfied that there is
absolutely no hope of success in this appeal
and accordingly, no interference is called
for.

27. Accordingly, the present appeal
against acquittal is dismissed.

28. No order as to costs.

29. Copy of this judgment be sent to
the court below for its compliance.
----------
(2023) 10 ILRA 1268
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Writ-A No. 10907 of 2023

Pankaj Kumar Priyam ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sanjay Maurya

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Examination-Applied for teacher in Sanskrit
vidyalay-submitted his document before the
institution
so
specified
therein
-thereafter
triggered an Email to the District Inspector of
Schools before the last date-application through
registered post reached the destination on
24.06.2023-last
date
was
23.06.2023Candidature
of
the
petitioner
was
not
considered-post office acts as an agent of the
respondent-but the respondents cannot be
bound by any delay on the receipt of the
application-first requirement itself stood noncomplied -email of hard copy as the second step
is dependent upon the first step.

W.P. dismissed. (E-9)

Cases cited:

1. Rajendra Patel Vs St. of U.P., 2016 (1)
UPLBEC 331

2. Neena Chaturvedi Vs U.P. Public Service
Commission (2010) 4 UPLBEC 2876

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sanjay Maurya, learned
counsel for the writ petitioner as well as Sri
Shailendra
Singh,
learned
Standing
Counsel who appears for respondents No. 1
and 2.
10 All. Pankaj Kumar Priyam Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1269

2. The case of the writ petitioner is
that the State Government in order to
achieve its noble objects to cope away with
the scarcity of the regular teachers came up
with a policy decision dated 24.07.2021
making short term appointments for a
period of one year commensurate to the
academic session in that regard. First in the
league was the Government Order dated
24.07.2021. The said Government Order
infused fresh light for the academic
sessions to come in future and in this
regard, the said Government Order was
further
followed
in
a
subsequent
Government Order dated 17.05.2023. As
per the writ petitioner, another Government
Order was issued on 25.05.2023 with
regard to the modalities for appointment of
teachers in Sanskrit Vidyalaya. In line with
the said Government Order a notification
was issued by the respondents dated
07.06.2023 for the purposes of making
recruitment of Sanskrit Teachers for 14
posts including the Sukhnandan Sanskrit
Pathshala, Mohammadpur, Mau. The writ
petitioner as per own saying applied in
pursuance of the said notification on
19.06.2023 and submitted his document
before the institution so specified therein
and thereafter triggered an Email to the
District
Inspector
of
Schools
on
19.06.2023.

3. Since the candidature of the writ
petitioner was not being considered for the
post of Sanskrit Teacher so the writ
petitioner preferred the present writ petition
seeking relief to the extent that a
mandamus
be
issued
directing
the
respondents to consider the petitioner's
application for the post of Sanskrit Teacher
which was claimed to be submitted on
19.06.2023.

4. This Court entertained the writ
petition on 21.07.2023 and passed the
following order.-

"This Court on 13.07.2023 has
passed the following orders.-

"Sri Sanjay Maurya, learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that
pursuant to the Government Order dated
07.06.2023 recruitment exercise was to be
undertaken for recruitment of Sanskrit
Teachers on 15 posts including the
Sukhnandan
Sanskrit
Pathshala,
Muhammadpur, Mau and the the last date
for receiving the application form was
23.06.2023.

In paragraph-5 of the writ
petition, it has been averred that the writ
petitioner preferred an application on
19.06.2023 and a specific submission has
also been made in paragraph-8 of the writ
petition that he had also submitted
application
through
e-mail
(online).
However, now, he is not being allowed to
participate in the interview on the pretext
that his application sent on 19.06.2023 has
been received after the last date, i.e.
23.06.2023.

Learned counsel for the petitioner
further
submits
that
as
per
the
advertisement, the applications were to be
submitted by both the modes, i.e. through
online as well as offline and thus, he
further submits that as per the covenant
contained in the Government Order in
question, which is at page-11A of the
paper-book dated 25.05.2023, minimum 15
days' time is to be accorded to the
applicant to submit its application in that
regard.
1270 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Sri Saurabh, who appears for the
respondents no. 1 and 2 seeks time to
obtain instructions. He is conscious about
the fact that the matter is of extreme
urgency so he requests a short time.

Put up as fresh on 17.07.2023, so
as to enable the learned Standing Counsel
to obtain instructions on the said issue."

Pursuant to the said order the
instructions have been received under the
signature of the District Inspector of
Schools, Mau, second respondent dated
19.07.2023
according
to
which
the
application form submitted by the writ
petitioner was received after the due date
i.e. on 24.06.2023 and the writ petitioner
had sent an E Mail which was received on
19.06.2023 within time but it did not
accompany the fees. Sri Pradeep Kumar
Shahi learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel submits that he may be granted
short time to file counter affidavit enclosing
therewith the Government Order the
advertisement (clear copy) and the E Mail
along with the attachment and other
document.

Put up this case on 01.08.2023 as
fresh a copy of the counter affidavit be
served upon the learned counsel for the
petitioner by 28 of July, 2023 so as to
enable the learned counsel for the writ
petition to file his reply. On the next date
the matter will be finally heard.

The instructions filed today is
taken on record and marked as Appendix
'A'."

5. A counter affidavit has been filed
by respondents No. 1 and 2 under the
signatures of the District Inspector of
Schools, Mau dated 07.08.2023, a rejoinder
affidavit has also been filed by the writ
petitioner which is available on record.

6. In order to effectively decide the
issue in question while going into the
legality and the propriety of the stand of the
respondents, it would be apposite to extract
the relevant clauses of the Government
Orders dated 24.07.2021 clause 4 at page
11 of the counter affidavit as well as
advertisement in question.-

4. अभ्यिी द्वारा अपिा आवेदि पत्र
सम्बंकित कवद्यािय को रकिस्टर्ि र्ाक द्वारा
प्रेकर्षत ककया िायेगा तिा उसकी छायाप्रकत कििा
कवद्यािय किरीक्क के ई-मेि आई0र्ी0 पर
प्रेकर्षत ककया िायेगा। कििा कवद्यािय किरीक्क
की ई-मेि आई0र्ी0 को कवज्ञस्ति में प्रकाकशत
कराया िायेगा।

Advertisement No. 2 of the 2023

आवेदि शुल्क कवज्ञापि में यिाकवकहत
सामान्य एवं कपछड़ा वगि के अभ्यिी हेतु रुपये
250/- आकििक रूप से कमिोर वगि एवं
अिुसूकित िाकत को रुपये 150/- एवं अिुसूकित
िििाकत अभ्यिी हेतु रुपये 100/- का बैक
र्राफ्ट अिवा रेिांककत पोस्टि आर्िर संस्िा
प्रबंिक के पक् में देय होगा। आवेदि -पत्र प्रास्ति
को अंकतम कतकि -23.06.2023 तक आवेदि -पत्र
पंिीकृत र्ाक से सायं 05.00 बिे तक सम्बंकित
प्राकिकारी को प्राि हो िािे िाकहये एवं आवेदि-
पत्र की छाया प्रकतयों को सम्बंकित ििपद के
कििा
कवद्यािय
किरीक्क
के
ई-मेि
dios.amau@gmail.com पर भी उक्त कतकि एवं
समय तक प्रेकर्षत ककया िािा िाकहए। कविम्ब या
अन्य कोई माध्यम से प्राि आवेदि- पत्रों पर
कोई कविार िही ककया िायेगा।

7. Sri Sanjay Maurya, learned counsel
for the writ petitioner has argued that in
10 All. Pankaj Kumar Priyam Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1271
terms of the Government Order dated
24.07.2021 clause (4) an applicant who was
aspirant for the said post had to submit its
application form before the concerned
institution within the time stipulated therein
and a copy of the application after fulfilling
the necessary formalities was to be sent
through Email to the concerned District
Inspector of Schools. It is the stand of the
writ petitioner that he has submitted the
application form while sending it through
registered post to the institution in question
on 19.06.2023, however, according to the
stand of the respondents the same got
received on 24.06.2023 in the institution in
question i.e. one day later to the last date
being 23.06.2023. While inviting the
attention of the Court towards Annexure 4
at page 34 reference whereof has been
given in para 6 of the writ petition it is
sought to be submitted that even in fact the
postal endorsement at page 34 and 35 itself
shows that the registry was sent on
19.06.2023
which
was
received
on
24.06.2023. Learned counsel for the writ
petitioner has further invited the attention
of the Court towards the Annexure 4 at
page 19 of the counter affidavit so as to
contend that the Email itself was sent by
the writ petitioner was received on
19.06.2023 in the office of the District
Inspector
of
Schools,
Mau,
second
respondent, thus, by all practical purposes
the application of the writ petitioner was
within time.

8. Learned counsel for the writ
petitioner in order to further buttress his
submission seeks to rely upon the full
bench decision in the case of Neena
Chaturvedi
Vs.
U.P.
Public
Service
Commission (2010) 4 UPLBEC 2876 so as
to contend that once only a solitary mode
was
provided
to
send
the
required
documents that too by registered post then
the postal department becomes the agent of
the respondent and in view of the said
admitted
fact
mere
receipt
of
the
application form of the writ petitioner after
the due date though sent before the due
date cannot be at the fault of the writ
petitioner.
He,
thus,
prays that
the
application being processed and he be
permitted to participate in the selection.

9. Sri Shailendra Singh, learned
Standing
Counsel
who
appears
for
respondents No. 1 and 2 while countering
the submission of the learned counsel for
the writ petitioner submits that the terms
and
conditions
mentioned
in
the
advertisement are itself loud and clear and
the writ petitioner being not a rustic but an
educated person cannot plead ignorance.
Submission is that the Government Order
dated 24.07.2021 providing for submission
of the application form at the first instance
along with the necessary formalities to be
fulfilled at the end of the candidate was to
reach before or on the last date of
submission of the application form and a
scanned copy of the same was to be mailed
in the official E Mail I.D. Of the second
respondent, District Inspector of Schools,
Mau is a mandatory condition and since in
the present case in hand might be the writ
petitioner had submitted the online form
while sending it through registered post on
19.06.2023 which reached the ultimate
destination on 24.06.2023 after the last date
23.06.2023, thus, the same will denude the
claim of the writ petitioner for processing
his application in order to participate in the
selections in question. As per the specific
stipulation contained in the Government
Orders and the advertisement in question
there were two fold requirements to be
fulfilled by the applicant, the first and
foremost was to submit application form in
hard copy before the concerned institution
1272 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
specified in the advertisement before the
last date and the second step was to scan
the copy of the application submitted
before the institution in question while
transmitting it through Email in the official
official Email I.D. of the District Inspector
of Schools. The said two steps were a
condition precedent which was to be
undertaken within the cut off date specified
in the advertisement. Mere compliance of
one of the conditions would not be
sufficient as the advertisement itself spelt
out that both the conditions were to be
fulfilled at the end of the candidate. Since
the writ petition had sent the application
form through registered post to the
institution in question on 19.06.2023 but it
reached
the
ultimate
destination
on
24.06.2023 well beyond the last date i.e.,
23.06.2023, thus, the first requirement itself
stood non-complied with, less to say about
triggering of the mail after scanning the
hard copy as the second step is dependent
upon the first step which as per own
showing became defective for want of
receipt by the institution in question within
the due date. Reliance has been placed
upon the judgment in the case of Rajendra
Patel Vs. State of U.P., yet another full
bench reported in 2016 (1) UPLBEC 331.

10. I have heard the learned counsel
for the parties and perused the record.

11. Undisputedly, the entire exercise
for making recruitment on the post in
question is referable and stems out from the
Government Order dated 24.07.2021, the
relevant extract whereof has been quoted in
the earlier part of the judgment. As per
clause (4) the candidate is to submit the
application
after
fulfilling
all
the
formalities before the due date to the
institution in question and after posting the
same a copy of the said application is to be
sent through Email to the District Inspector
of Schools before the last date. Here, the
Court finds as per the own saying of the
writ petitioner that he had sent the
application form on 19.06.2023 to the
institution in question which as per the
postal endorsement attached with the
counter
affidavit
was
received
on
24.06.2023, the last date whereof being
23.06.2023. The other part which was to be
performed by the respective applicant, the
petitioner in the present case was to
transmit the application which he had
submitted before the institution in question
through Email before the last date in the
office of DIOS. Apparently, in the counter
affidavit it has come on record that the
Email was received on 19.06.2023 well
within the last date but the crucial question
arises as to whether the first part stood
complied with the at the end of the writ
petitioner or not while submitting the
application before the institution before the
last date. Though learned counsel for the
writ petitioner seeks to rely upon the
judgment in the case of Neena Chaturvedi
(supra) so as to contend that once only a
solitary mode was provided for submission
of the application form that too by
registered post and the writ petitioner sent
the same while posting it within the time
stipulated then merely because it reached
the
ultimate
destination
subsequently
would not be a disqualification for the writ
petitioner. In this regard it would be
profitable to quote the relevant extract of
the judgment in the case of Neena
Chaturvedi (supra) which is recapitulated
hereinunder.-

"43. If the postal rule is made
applicable
in
matters
of
inviting
applications to appear for an examination
or for an interview, and applications are to
be sent by post, even if one application
10 All. Pankaj Kumar Priyam Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1273
does not reach in time on account of postal
delay to scrap the examination or hold
special examination in such cases would
produce
manifest
inconvenience
and
absurdity.

44.
In
ANSON'S
LAW
OF
CONTRACT edited by A.G. Guest, 26th
Edition, the postal rules has been explained
as where the terms of the offer expressly or
impliedly indicate that it is to be accepted,
not by the performance of some act or
forbearance, but by a return promise given
by the offeree, the general rule is clear:
acceptance must be communicated before it
can take effect. But in certain exceptional
cases the law, for reasons, of convenience,
is prepared to hold that the offeror is
bound though the acceptance has not
reached him. This is so where it is
reasonable for the offeree to notify his
acceptance by post or telegram. Learned
author notes that logic of this rule may be
questioned and various attempts have been
made to justify this rule analytically. After
considering various lines of reasons, the
author observes that the better explanation
would seem to be that the rule is based, not
on logic, but on commercial convenience. If
hardship is caused, as it obviously may be,
by the delay or loss of a letter of
acceptance, some rule is necessary, and the
rule at which the Courts have arrived is
probably as satisfactory as any other would
be. It is always open to the offeror to
protect
himself
by
requiring
actual
notification of the acceptance, and the
nature of the offer or the circumstances in
which it was made may indicate that
notification is required.

45. Even in respect of an agency
the same is based on the principle, that the
Principal is bound by the acts of the agent.
Rule of agency in a case of merely inviting
offers normally would not apply if a date
for receipt of the acceptance is set out
Therefore in such cases if at all the law of
agency applies it would be between the
sender and the post office by virtue of the
fact that the sender delivers the letters or
articles to the post office. The post office is
bound as an agent of the sender to deliver
it to the addressee."

12. The judgment in the case of
Neena Chaturvedi (supra) throws light on
the issue as according to it, it has been
propounded that a contract between the
applicant and post office cannot bind the
third party otherwise accepting such a
proposition that the post office becomes the
agent of the body which invited the
application
will
lead
to
manifest
inconvenience and absurdity as to for how
long could such a body has to wait for the
receipt of the application sent by the
applicants.

13. Now coming to the judgment in
the case of Rajendra Patel (supra), yet
another full bench this Court in para 15, 16,
17, 19, 20 and 21 it was observed as
under.-

"15. On the other hand learned
senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
Commission has submitted that (i) the
documents are submitted by a candidate for
the first time with the office of the
Commission together with a hard copy; (ii)
the submission of the hard copy of the
application
together
with
prescribed
documents is not just a confirmation of the
online application but it is only on the basis
of the documents which the candidate
submits together with his application that
the Commission is in a position to
determine whether the candidate fulfils the
required conditions of eligibility;
1274 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(iii) all the candidates were
specifically placed on notice that should
they fail to fulfil all the prescribed four
steps by the last date which had been
prescribed, the candidature would stand
rejected; and (iv) the Commission which
conducts the examination is required to fix
some cut off date and once a cut off date
has been fixed, it would necessarily have to
be regarded as mandatory, failing which,
the conduct of public examinations on such
a large scale would become impossible of
compliance.

16.
The
Commission
while
conducting
the
Combined
Services
Examination had clearly placed all the
candidates on notice of the fact that the
process of submitting applications for
appearing at the main examination involves
four stages. The advertisement which was
issued by the Commission on 4 October
2014 delineated each one of the four stages
and prescribed a last date for compliance.
The question of compliance at a subsequent
stage arises only when the prior stage has
been completed by the prescribed last date.
In the first stage, the candidate is required
to visit the website for the purpose of
selecting the examination centre and the
optional subjects. In the second stage, the
candidate has to submit the examination
fee through the prescribed electronic mode.
In the third stage, the candidate has to
submit the application online after deposit
of the examination fee and obtain a print
out of the online format by the date
prescribed. In the fourth stage, the
candidate
is
required
to
submit
a
conventional hard copy complete with all
documents in the office of the Commission
either through registered post or by
personal delivery by a stipulated last date.
All the candidates were also placed on
notice that in the event they do not comply
with
the
stages
as
prescribed,
the
candidature would stand rejected.

17. Having regard to the clear
stipulations which are contained in the
advertisement which was issued by the
Commission
and
the
instructions
to
candidates in the brochure, all candidates
were placed on an unambiguous notice in
regard to the process of compliance and
the consequences of a breach. Compliance
was not made optional but was mandatory
for
all
the
candidates.
When
the
Commission holds public examinations on
such a large scale, candidates must be
clearly aware of the fact that it is not open
to a candidate to decide as to when an
application should be submitted and
compliance with the time schedule which
has been indicated is mandatory. If this is
not read to be mandatory, the entire
process of holding an examination would
stand dislocated. If no last date for the
receipt of the hard copy of the application
with the documents were to be provided
for, the issue which would arise would be
until when would the Commission be
required to consider the application
submitted. Should this be until the
examination isnheld or should this continue
until the date fixed for the holding of the
interview? These aspects cannot be left in
uncertainty more so at the individual
discretion of candidates. The submission of
the hard copy of the application together
with the documents is not a mere
ministerial act nor does it constitute a mere
confirmation of the application which has
been submitted online. Candidates who
submit
applications
online
are
still
required to submit full documentary
evidence which evinces eligibility and
satisfaction of the required conditions. For
instance, a candidate who applies for a
10 All. Pankaj Kumar Priyam Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1275
particular post may be required to hold a
qualification with a specialisation in a
particular subject. It is only on scrutinising
the application and the documents that the
Commission can determine whether the
candidate
does
fulfil
the
required
conditions. This process cannot be left in a
perpetual state of indecision or uncertainty.
Hence, we are of the view that as a matter
of first principle, the time schedule which
was prescribed by the Commission for
submission of the print out copy of the
application submitted online with the
documents was of a mandatory nature.
Non-compliance with the schedule would
invite the consequence which was clearly
specified, namely the rejection of the
candidature of the applicant.

19. The judgment of the Full
Bench was followed in a judgment of the
Division Bench in Ravindra Kumar (supra)
which was delivered on 28 April 2014. The
judgment in Ravindra Kumar (supra) was
in fact cited before the Division Bench
when the writ petition in Nirbhay Kumar
(supra) came up for hearing. If the Division
Bench in Nirbhay Kumar (supra) was
inclined to take a view at variance with
what was laid down in Ravindra Kumar
(supra), the appropriate course of action
would have been to refer the case to a Full
Bench for reconsideration. Instead, the
Division Bench has charted out a course of
action which, with respect, is inconsistent
with the law which was laid down in the
earlier judgment in Ravindra Kumar
(supra). This, in our view, with greater
respect, is impermissible.

20. 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.

21. Reliance was also sought to
be placed on a judgment of the Supreme
Court in Dolly Chhanda Vs Chairman,
JEE6. 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
1276 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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
Chaitanya7, 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."

14.

Respectfully
following the
judgments in the case of the Neena
Chaturvedi (supra) and Rajendra Patel
(supra), applying the law culled out in the
judgment in the case of Neena Chaturvedi
(supra) and Rajendra Patel (supra) in the
present facts of the case it is apparently
clear beyond any shadow of doubt that the
though the post office acts as an agent of
the respondent but the respondents cannot
be bound by any delay on the receipt of the
application
form
and
further
the
respondents cannot be allowed to wait for
time immemorial in that regard. There is an
additional factor which also needs to be
considered that the terms set out in the
Government Orders as referred to above
and the advertisement in question are quite
specific, loud and clear and they cannot be
allowed to be twisted or tailored in a
manner which suits to the individual
applicants. The Courts of law, in case,
gives elasticity and leverage as sought by
the writ petitioner then obviously the
selection proceedings cannot be concluded
as even otherwise law is very clear that cut
of date is sometime painful to one and
beneficial to other. Since in the present
case the application so submitted (hard
copy was received after the due date) thus
merely because the writ petitioner had
communicated the same through Email on
19.06.2023 would not make any difference
as the two exercises are dependent which in
entirety has not been adhered to.

15. For the reasons above, this Court
does not find the present case to be a fit
case to accord any consideration on the
claim of the writ petition and accordingly,
the writ petition is dismissed.

----------
(2023) 10 ILRA 1276
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

Writ-A No. 6609 of 2023

Renu Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ms. Arti Raje

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Smt. Archana Singh, Sri Bhupendra
Yadav, Sri Shailendra Singh
Held: The inquiry conducted against the
petitioner, a Head Mistress, was vitiated due to
non-compliance with the mandatory procedure
under Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servants
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, which
requires the Inquiry Officer to fix a date, time,
and place for oral inquiry, record evidence,
allow
cross-examination,
and
permit
the
delinquent employee to produce evidence in
defense. The Inquiry Officer failed to follow
these procedures, submitting the inquiry report