# Praveen Kumar v. Registrar General, Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 10 ILRA 391
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-08-27
- **Case number:** WRIT - A No. 6238 of 2020
- **Bench:** Prakash Padia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/praveen-kumar-v-registrar-general-hon-ble-high-court-allahabad-anr-45349
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Opportunity for interview
and verification of documents - An
advertisement inviting applications for
examination or recruitment is merely an
invitation to offer and not an offer itself. 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 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.

Even if principle of contract regarding offer and
acceptance is applicable, then in that case as
soon as an offerer dispatches its offer, his duty
is over. It is only required to be seen whether
such offer was made within the prescribed
period or not.

In the present case, a question arose before this
Court that whose fault is this by which the
392 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner
was
prevented
from
attending
interview on the relevant date and time.
Whether it is a fault of the respondents or of the
postal
department?
According
to
the
respondents, call letter was dispatched 15 days
before from the date of interview by "Speed
Post", an urgent delivery scheme of Indian
Postal Department. It further appears from
perusal of the postal document that though the
postman tried to serve the letter in question
upon the petitioner for the first time on
23.6.2020 itself but since petitioner was not
available and his door was locked, the same
could only be served upon the petitioner on
30.6.2020. Therefore, Court held that there is
absolutely no fault either on part of the
respondents in the present writ petition or on
part of the postal department. (Para 8, 9)

Writ petition dismissed. ( E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

10 All. Praveen Kumar Vs. Registrar General, Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad & Anr.
391
in the written examination, shall be placed
higher.

21. Appointment to the service.-
(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2),
the Governor shall, on receipt of the list of
candidates submitted by the Commission
under sub-rule (3) of Rule 20, make
appointment on the post of Civil Judge
(Junior Division) in the order in which
their names are given in the list provided
the
Governors
is
satisfied
that
the
Candidate is otherwise qualified and
entitled for such appointment under these
rules. (2) The select list prepared under
sub-rule (3) of Rule 20 shall lapse after all
the vacancies advertised or varied after
due notification, are filled up."

10. There is nothing on record which
may indicate that in terms of Rule 20(3) of
the "Rules",the vacancies which remain
underutilized due to non-joining of the
candidates, as mentioned in the list, have
been released by a subsequent recruitment.

11. In view of the above, we dispose
of the writ petition with the following
directions to respondent no. 2 (U.P. Public
Service Commission ):-

i) That the Commission shall
forward the list of wait listed candidates
against each category, keeping vertical and
horizontal reservation in mind within 30
days from the date of filing of certified
copy of this order before it.

ii) Further, if such posts have not
been
utilized
in
any
subsequent
recruitment, the commission shall fill up
the said posts strictly in accordance with
the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Services Rules,
2001, which could not be filled up, in order
to merits of the wait listed candidates,
within a further period of 60 day and
submit compliance report to the Registrar
General of this Court within 75 days from
today.

12. With the aforesaid direction, the
writ petition, is, finally disposed of.
----------
(2020)10ILR A391
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.08.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

WRIT - A No. 6238 of 2020

Praveen Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
Registrar General, Hon'ble High Court,
Allahabad & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Moti Lal Chauhan

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ashish Mishra, Sri Chandan Sharma

A. Service Law - Opportunity for interview
and verification of documents - An
advertisement inviting applications for
examination or recruitment is merely an
invitation to offer and not an offer itself. 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 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.

Even if principle of contract regarding offer and
acceptance is applicable, then in that case as
soon as an offerer dispatches its offer, his duty
is over. It is only required to be seen whether
such offer was made within the prescribed
period or not.

In the present case, a question arose before this
Court that whose fault is this by which the
392 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner
was
prevented
from
attending
interview on the relevant date and time.
Whether it is a fault of the respondents or of the
postal
department?
According
to
the
respondents, call letter was dispatched 15 days
before from the date of interview by "Speed
Post", an urgent delivery scheme of Indian
Postal Department. It further appears from
perusal of the postal document that though the
postman tried to serve the letter in question
upon the petitioner for the first time on
23.6.2020 itself but since petitioner was not
available and his door was locked, the same
could only be served upon the petitioner on
30.6.2020. Therefore, Court held that there is
absolutely no fault either on part of the
respondents in the present writ petition or on
part of the postal department. (Para 8, 9)

Writ petition dismissed. ( E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Gunjan Bhardwaj Vs Indian Oil Corporation
Ltd. & anr. 2011 (5) AWC 4719 decided on
23.05.2011 (Para 6, 9)

2.
Neena
Chaturvedi
Vs
Public
Service
Commission, U.P. 2010 (9) ADJ 152 (Para 8)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Chandan Sharma, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent no.1.

2. The petitioner has preferred the
present writ petition with the prayer to
issue a mandamus directing the respondent
no.1/Registrar
General,
High
Court,
Allahabad to provide one opportunity again
to
the
petitioner
for
interview
and
verification of documents for the post of
Farrash
(Group-IV)
in
pursuance
of
advertisement dated 05.2.2018.

3. The facts in brief as contained in
the writ petition are that an advertisement
was issued by the respondent no.1 for
inviting applications for appointment of
Sweeper, Cook, Mali, Farrash (Group-IV)
on 05.2.2018.

4. The petitioner applied being the
eligible and qualified candidate for the post
of farrash. An admit card was issued to the
petitioner by which the petitioner was
permitted to appear in the written test,
which was held on 25.8.2019. The
petitioner duly participated in the aforesaid
written examination. The result of the same
was published on 19.2.2020 in which
petitioner
was
declared
qualified.
Subsequently on 16.6.2020 a call letter was
issued to the petitioner by the respondent
no.2 by which the petitioner was directed to
appear
for
interview
and
document
verification on 30.6.2020 at 8.00 A.M. The
same was served upon the petitioner on
30.6.2020 at about 3.15 P.M. The track
consignment available on the official
website of the postal department is
appended as annexure 4 to the writ petition.
It appears from perusal of the same that
though the postman concerned along-with
envelop went to the registered postal
address of the petitioner on 6 times, i.e., on
23.6.2020,
24.6.2020,
25.6.2020,
26.6.2020, 27.6.2020 and 29.6.2020 but all
the times the remark was made by the
postman "item onhold door locked".
Ultimately the aforesaid envelop was
served on the petitioner on 30.6.2020 at
15.49.11. In this view of the matter, since
for inter-view, call letter was not received
by the petitioner within time, he was not
able to appear before the interview board.
Thereafter, a representation was submitted
by the petitioner before the respondent no.1
on 7.7.2020 with a request to permit the
petitioner to participate in the interview and
for document verification. Since no action
was taken on the same, petitioner has
preferred the present writ petition.
10 All. Praveen Kumar Vs. Registrar General, Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad & Anr.
393

5. Sri Chandan Sharma, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
no.1 placed before this Court the copy of
the
advertisement
published
by
the
respondent no.1. In para 11 of the
advertisement date, time and venue of
examination was mentioned. It is further
stated in para 12 of the advertisement that
the respondent no.2 was authorized to hold
the aforesaid examination. Pursuant to the
same, examination in question was held
and results of the written examination was
declared. Subsequently, a call letter was
issued to the petitioner by the respondent
no.2 by speed post on 16.6.2020 by which
the petitioner was directed to appear for the
document verification and interview and
the date fixed for interview was 30.6.2020.
It further appears from perusal of the postal
document that though the postman tried to
serve
the
aforesaid
letter
upon
the
petitioner for the first time on 23.6.2020
but since the petitioner was not available
and his residence was locked, the aforesaid
letter was not served upon the petitioner. It
further appears that the concerned postman
tried to serve the aforesaid letter upon the
petitioner at least on six occasions but on
all the times, he found that the door was
locked. In this situation letter was served
upon the petitioner for the first time on
30.6.2020 and in view of the same, he was
not able to attend the interview.

6. It is further argued by Sri Chandan
Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent no.1 that there is absolutely no fault
either on part of the respondents. He also relied
upon a Division Bench judgement of this Court
passed in Gunjan Bharadwaj Vs. Indian Oil
Corporation Limited and another reported in
2011 (5) AWC 4719 decided on 23.5.2011.

7. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

8. From perusal of the facts as
narrated above, the Court is of the
opinion that there is no fault on part of
the respondents. In this background of the
matter, a question arose before this Court
that whose fault is this by which the
petitioner was prevented from attending
interview on the relevant date and time.
Whether it is a fault of the respondents or
of the postal department. According to
the
respondents,
call
letter
was
dispatched 15 days before from the date
of interview by "Speed Post", an urgent
delivery
scheme
of
Indian
Postal
Department. It further appears from
perusal of the postal document that
though the postman tried to serve the
letter in question upon the petitioner for
the first time on 23.6.2020 itself but since
petitioner was not available and his door
was locked, the same could only be
served upon the petitioner on 30.6.2020.
In this view of the matter, Court is of the
opinion that there is absolutely no fault
either on part of the respondents in the
present writ petition or on part of the
postal department. The Full Bench of this
Court in the case of Neena Chaturvedi
Vs. Public Service Commission, Uttar
Pradesh reported in 2010 (9) ADJ 152
has held that an advertisement inviting
applications
for
examination
or
recruitment is merely an invitation to
offer and not an offer itself. However, in
coming to conclusion the Full Bench has
held as follows:

"(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
does not reach in time on account of postal
delay to scrap the examination or hold
special examination in such cases would
394 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
produce
manifest
inconvenience
and
absurdity."

9.

In
the
case
of
Gunjan
Bharadwaj (supra) it was held by a
Division Bench of this Court that the
authorities could not be held liable for
non reaching of postal articles of the
petitioner. The relevant paragraph of
the aforesaid judgement is reproduced
hereinbelow:-

"Against this background, the
Corporation can not be held liable for
non-reaching of postal articles to the
petitioner. Even if we accept that the
principle of contract regarding offer
and acceptance is applicable between
the petitioner and the Corporation, then
in that case as soon as an offerer
dispatches its offer, his duty is over. We
are only required to see whether such
offer was made within the prescribed
period or not. Factually, we find that it
was dispatched within the prescribed
period. We also find that in the
brochure it has been categorically said
that the Corporation is not responsible
for any postal delay. The petitioner
seeing such clause with open eyes
wanted to make offer, pursuant to which
the call letter was issued to her by the
Corporation
well
within
time.
Thereafter, no responsibility lies on the
part of the Corporation for such delay."

10. In this view of the matter, I am
of the view that no relief, either
mandatory or compensatory in nature,
can be granted to the petitioner.

11. The writ petition has no force.
Accordingly, it is dismissed, however,
without imposing any cost.
----------
(2020)10ILR A394
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.09.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VIVEK AGARWAL, J.

WRIT - A No. 6649 of 2020

Alok Kumar Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Anurag Tripathi, Sri Gaurav Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri M.N. Singh

A. Service Law - UPPSC (Procedure and
Conduct of Business) Rules, 2011 - Rule
51- UP State Public Service Commission
(Regulation and Procedure) Act, 1985 -
Respondent
-
Recruitment/Selection
Process - Scaling Methodology -

Aspect of scaling has nothing to do with
the right of the petitioners to obtain
copies of his answer script - There is no
violation
of
law
under
Right
to
Information Act - Petitioners allegation is that
not providing information amounts to violation
of law. Mandate of law is, examinee in a public
examination has a right to inspect his evaluated
answer book or taking certified copies thereof.
Such a book is document and record in terms of
Sections
2(f)
and
2(i)
and
therefore,
"information" under Right to Information Act.
(Para 20)

In the present case, dispute is not w.r.t.
irregularities in valuation of the answer book but
is w.r.t. scaling methodology adopted by UPPSC.
There is no allegation of irrational, illogical or
arbitrary valuation but whole writ petition is
based on ground of methodology of the
scaling and on the premise that its
adoption has been disapproved by the
Supreme Court in Case of Sanjay Singh
(infra). (Para 22, 23)