# Rajendra Patel v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2015) 2 ILRA 1010
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-08-14
- **Case number:** C.M.W.P. No. 7401 of 2015
- **Bench:** Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J. Dilip Gupta, Yashwant Varma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajendra-patel-v-state-of-u-p-anr-43216
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Scope of
interference under Writ Jurisdiction-last
date submission of form-prescribed with
stipulation-hard copy of document must
be send before the last date either
personally
or
by
registered
post-if
petitioner adopted the registered modeshould be on its own risk-view taken by
Division Bench in Nirbhay Kumar Casenot
correct-once
the
commission
prescribed
the
mode
with
clear
stipulation-Writ Court can not interpret
otherwise-view taken in Raj Narayan
case affirmed.
Held: Para-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 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.
Case Law discussed:
Writ A No. 9651 of 2015 decided on 18
February 2015; [(2010) 4 UPLBEC 2876]; Writ
A No. 24060 of 2014 decided on 28 April 2014;
(2005) 9 SCC 779; (2011) 14 SCC 227.

## Text

1010
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
before the Delhi High Court impleading the
respondents as opposite parties and the issue
before the Delhi High Court was exactly the
same as in the present case. The Delhi High
Court vide order dated 17.12.2014 allowed
the writ petition filed by Ashwani Kumar
and since Ashwani Kumar has already been
held to be innocent by the Division Bench of
Delhi High Court and the impugned orders
issued by the respondents have been
quashed, the charges levelled against the
petitioner cannot be sustained. Moreover,
Ashwani Kumar has already been given an
appointment on the basis of selection held in
the year 2011, whereas in the subsequent
year in 2012 the petitioner has been selected
and the impugned order has been passed on
the ground of cheating with one Ashwani
Kumar. The similar allegation was levelled
against Ashwani Kumar and once the
Division Bench of Delhi High Court has
already set aside the orders, which had been
passed against Ashwani Kumar for his
termination and for the same recruitment
year, he has been given an appointment and
he is still working, at this stage, taking a
shelter of malpractice/cheating adopted by
the petitioner in the examination of 2011 the
appointment of the petitioner in the
subsequent recruitment year cannot be
denied.
14. It has been categorically brought
on record that the petitioner has already
been selected in the Combined Graduate
Level Examination 2012. The result was
declared on 8.2.2013 and the authority
concerned
has
already
verified
the
documents and his medical examination
has already been taken place. Therefore,
at this stage, the claim of the petitioner
cannot be denied.
15.
In para-19 of the short counter
affidavit, it is stated that the Commission has
taken a decision to challenge the judgment of
Delhi High Court dated 17.12.2014. This
affidavit was sworn in the month of March,
2015 and considerable time has lapsed in
between. The order dated 17.12.2014 was
passed by the Delhi High Court before
passing of the impugned order dated
13.1.2015. Admittedly, the respondents were
in the knowledge of the order passed by the
Delhi High Court, which has attained finality.
Nothing has been brought on record to
indicate that the respondents have preferred
any Special Leave Petition against the
judgment of Delhi High Court dated
17.12.2014.
16. In view of above, the order
impugned dated 13.1.2015 is violative of
principle of natural justice and is
accordingly set aside.
17.
The writ petition is allowed. The
respondents are directed to issue appointment
letter in favour of the petitioner in pursuance
of his final selection in Combined Graduate
Level Examination-2012 on the post of Tax
Assistant in the office of Commissioner of
Customs (General), New Custom House,
Ballad Estate, Mumbai within a period of
four weeks' from the date of production of a
certified copy of the order.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.08.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. DHANANJAYA YESHWANT
CHANDRACHUD, C.J.
THE HON'BLE DILIP GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE YASHWANT VARMA, J.
C.M.W.P. No. 7401 of 2015
Rajendra Patel
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr.
...Respondents
2 All] Rajendra Patel Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1011
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashok Khare, Sri Siddharth Khare
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C. , Sri Niseeth Yadav, Sri G.K. Singh
Constitution of India, Art.-226-Scope of
interference under Writ Jurisdiction-last
date submission of form-prescribed with
stipulation-hard copy of document must
be send before the last date either
personally
or
by
registered
post-if
petitioner adopted the registered modeshould be on its own risk-view taken by
Division Bench in Nirbhay Kumar Casenot
correct-once
the
commission
prescribed
the
mode
with
clear
stipulation-Writ Court can not interpret
otherwise-view taken in Raj Narayan
case affirmed.
Held: Para-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 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.
Case Law discussed:
Writ A No. 9651 of 2015 decided on 18
February 2015; [(2010) 4 UPLBEC 2876]; Writ
A No. 24060 of 2014 decided on 28 April 2014;
(2005) 9 SCC 779; (2011) 14 SCC 227.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud,
C.J.)
1. This reference to the Full Bench
has been occasioned by a referring order
dated 2 April 2015.
2.
The Uttar Pradesh Public Service
Commission1 issued an advertisement on 24
April 2014 notifying the Combined State/Upper
Subordinate Services Examination 2014. The
petitioner participated in the preliminary written
examination on 3 August 2014. Candidates who
had qualified in the preliminary written
examination were required to submit an online
application for appearing at the main written
examination. An advertisement was issued on 4
October 2014 by the Commission notifying that
the candidates who had been declared successful
in the preliminary examination should visit the
website of the Commission for obtaining
information in regard to the process to be
followed for appearing at the main examination.
The four stages with a time schedule indicated in
the advertisement were as follows:
(i)Date
for
the
filling
up
of
applications online on the website of the
Commission for appearing at the main
examination
and
selection
of
the
examination centre and the two optional
subjects...............................From
1
October 2014 to 11 October 2014
(ii) The last date for submitting the
examination fee through the process of E
- Challan/I - Collect (through SBI/PNB).
...............................Upto 17 October 2014
(iii) The last date for the submission
of online applications after submission of
the examination fee and obtaining its print
out. ...............Upto 20 October 2014
(iv) Submission of the applications in
the conventional hard copy together with
all the accompanying documents in the
1012
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
office of the Commission either through
registered post or through personal
delivery. .............Upto 27 October 2014
by 5 pm
3. On 27 October 2014, the
Commission
issued
a
further
advertisement stating that the main
examination would be conducted between
5 November 2014 and 21 November 2014
in
the
districts
of
Allahabad
and
Lucknow.
All
the
candidates
were
informed that they were being granted
provisional permission to appear at the
main examination subject to the condition
that they had completed the process for
fulfilling all the aforesaid four stages
within the stipulated time and if it was
found upon scrutiny that any candidate
had failed to complete any of the four
stages in time, his candidature was liable
to
be
rejected.
We are extracting
hereinbelow the relevant part of the
advertisement dated 27 October 2014:
"mDr ijh{kk ls lEcfU/kr vH;fFkZ;ksa dks
,rn~}kjk lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd mUgsa eq[; ijh{kk
esa bl 'krZ ds lkFk vkSicfU/kd :i ls lfEefyr gksus
dh vuqefr iznku dh tk jgh gS fd muds }kjk
fu/kkZfjr frfFk rd vkosnu i= tek djus dh pkjks
pj.k dh izfdz;k iw.kZ dj yh x;h gS ;fn
lfUujh{kksijkUr ;g ik;k tkrk gS fd mUgksaus fu/kkZfjr
frfFk rd vkosnu i= tek fd;s tkus fo"k;d pkjks
pj.kksa dh izfdz;k iw.kZ ugha dh gS rks mudk vH;FkZu
fujLr dj fn;k tk;sxkA"
4. The brochure which was issued
by the Commission to the candidates
similarly provided as follows:
"vko';d uksV%&
vH;fFkZ;ksa dks ,rn~}kjk
lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd mUgsa eq[; ijh{kk esa bl
'krZ ds lkFk vkSicfU/kd :i ls lfEefyr gksus dh
vuqefr iznku dh tk jgh gS fd muds }kjk fu/kkZfjr
frfFk rd vkosnu i= tek djus dh pkjks pj.k dh
izfdz;k iw.kZ dj yh xbZ gS ;fn lfUujh{kksijkUr ;g
ik;k tkrk gS fd mUgksaus fu/kkZfjr frfFk rd vkosnu
i= tek fd;s tkus fo"k;d pkjks pj.kksa dh izfdz;k
iw.kZ ugha dh gS rks mudk vH;FkZu fujLr dj fn;k
tk;sxkA"
5. Under the notice dated 27 October
2014 and the conditions stipulated in the
brochure all the candidates were placed
on notice that they were being permitted
to appear at the main written examination
subject to the condition that the candidate
should have completed all the four stages
of
the
process
failing
which
the
candidature of the candidate would be
cancelled.
6. In the present case, the facts are that
the
petitioner
submitted
an
online
application form for appearing at the main
examination before the last date prescribed.
A hard copy of the application form was
sent to the Commission by speed post on 16
October 2014. The speed post cover was
tendered at the office of the Commission by
the postal authorities on 31 October 2014.
The postal cover was not accepted on the
ground that it was submitted beyond the last
date. A provisional admit card had, in the
meantime, been issued to the petitioner for
appearing in the main examination and the
petitioner appeared at the examination
which was held between 5 and 10
November 2014. The result of the petitioner
was not declared. A writ petition was,
accordingly,
filed
commanding
the
Commission to accept the hard copy of the
application form and not to reject the
candidature of the petitioner on the ground
that the hard copy had been tendered after
27 October 2014. A direction was also
sought for the declaration of the result of the
petitioner.
7. When the writ petition came up
before the Division Bench, the Court
2 All] Rajendra Patel Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1013
noted a conflict between the views taken
by two coordinate Division Benches these
being in (i) Nirbhay Kumar Vs U P Public
Service
Commission2; and (ii) Raj
Narayan Singh Vs U P Public Service
Commission3.
8. In the judgment in Raj Narayan
Singh (supra), a Division Bench of this
Court while construing the provisions of
the
same
advertisement
has
held,
following a judgment of the Full Bench of
this Court in Neena Chaturvedi Vs Public
Service Commission4 that the petitioner
had an option to submit the application
form by registered post or by hand
delivery. The Division Bench held that as
the candidates were clearly placed on
notice that in the event the application
form was not received in time, it would
stand rejected, it was for the petitioner to
have ensured that the application form
was received in the office of the
Commission by the stipulated date. The
view of the Division Bench was that since
the print out of the application form
together with the requisite documents was
not submitted in time and in view of the
clear
stipulation
contained
in
the
advertisement that the application form
would stand rejected, mere appearance at
the main examination would not confer
any benefit upon the petitioner.
9. This view of the Division Bench
in Raj Narayan Singh (supra) was also
consistent with an earlier judgment of the
Division Bench in Ravindra Kumar Vs
Public
Service
Commission5.
The
judgment in Ravindra Kumar (supra) also
relied upon the judgment of the Full
Bench in Neena Chaturvedi (supra).
10. Another Division Bench of this
Court which considered the issue in
Nirbhay Kumar (supra) took a different
view and held that the submission of a
hard copy of the application together with
the prescribed documents was only an act
of confirmation of the application and the
delay in receiving the hard copy cannot be
a ground to reject the application. The
Division Bench observed as follows:
"In the present case we are faced
with entirely different facts. With large
number of applicants applying for the
vacancies,
the
method
of
inviting
applications
online
has
received
acceptance in almost all the departments
of the Central and State Governments.
The High Court is also now inviting
applications online both to avoid delay,
and the collection of data in a digital
form, which makes it easy for compiling
and cataloging the applications. Once the
applications are received online complete
in all aspects along with details of
payments
of
examination
fees,
the
registration of the application becomes
complete, unless there is some difficulty
in the online application, or that the
examination fees paid is not sufficient.
Ordinarily in all such cases online
applications are rejected and are not
accepted on the server of the examining
body.
However, as soon as the application
is accepted online, the requirement of
making application and the registration of
the
application
is
complete.
The
forwarding of the downloaded hardcopy
of the online application form and the
testimonials including the certificates,
which makes the applicant eligible for the
job for claiming reservation is an act of
confirmation of the application. The delay
in receiving the hard copy cannot be a
ground to reject the application of the
applicant. In such case if the hard copy is
1014
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
sent by registered post before the last date
of receipt of the application, the envelope
by the registered post cannot be refused to
be accepted.
There may be exceptions in which
either the envelope by registered post
dispatched prior to the last date is either lost
or is received after the examinations have
begun. In the present case, however, we are
not concerned with any such facts."
11. In the view of the Division
Bench, once an application had been
submitted online and hard copies and
testimonials were sent by registered post,
the Commission could not refuse to
accept the envelope containing the hard
copy, if it was dispatched prior to the last
date fixed for receiving the hard copy and
testimonials in the envelope. The Division
Bench observed as follows:
"In view of the aforesaid discussion, we
hold that where the applications are invited
online and the hard copies and testimonials
are provided to be sent by registered post/
speed post and date of its receipt is fixed, once
the online registration is complete with the
proof
of
examination
fees
paid,
the
Commission cannot refuse to accept the
envelopes containing hard copy of the
application and the testimonials, if it has been
dispatched prior to the last date fixed for
receiving hard copy and testimonials in the
envelope."
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
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.
14. The issue before the Court is
whether there is any substance in the
2 All] Rajendra Patel Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1015
contention which has been urged on
behalf of the petitioner by learned senior
counsel that (i) the submission of a hard
copy together with all documents was
merely an act of confirmation of the
online
application;
and
(ii)
the
requirement of submitting a hard copy by
the prescribed date can be regarded as
directory in nature.
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; (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
1016
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 is held 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
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. Noncompliance with the schedule would invite
the consequence which was clearly specified,
namely the rejection of the candidature of the
applicant.
18. The issue which we have
considered has to a certain extent been
dwelt upon in the judgment of a Full
Bench in Neena Chaturvedi (supra). The
Full Bench in Neena Chaturvedi (supra),
inter alia, considered as to whether the
post office through which the applications
are submitted by a candidate who seeks to
appear at an examination conducted by
the Commission becomes an agent of the
addressee. The Full Bench held that if the
post office was treated to be an agent of
the addressee, the very process of
recruitment would be frustrated. The Full
Bench observed as follows:
"33. Apart from that insofar as the
entire process of recruitment is concerned,
may be in the office of respondent or any
other body, which invites applications, if
view is accepted that the post office becomes
the agent of the addressee, the very process
of recruitment itself would be frustrated. A
contract between the sender and the post
office cannot bind the addressee. Even
otherwise accepting a proposition that the
post office becomes the agent of the body
which invited the applications would lead to
manifest inconvenience and absurdity. For
how long would such body have to wait for
receipt of applications sent by post to
conduct
the
interview,
or
hold
the
examination and what happens in cases
where the application is lost through transit.
Therefore when applications are to be
received by a particular cut off date assuming
that there is an offer and acceptance, receipt
of the application by that cut off date only
would make the acceptance complete."
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
2 All] Rajendra Patel Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1017
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
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.
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
1018
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
would 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.
23. The reference is answered
accordingly. The petition shall now be
placed before the regular bench for
disposal in the light of the reference
answered.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.07.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. VIJAY LAKSHMI, J.
Civil Misc. Habeas Corpus Writ Petition
No. 8528 of 2015
Jitendra Yadav
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ram Niwas Singh, Sri Vinay Kr. Singh
Chandel
Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A., A.S.G.I. (2015/0271)
Constitution of India, Art.-226-detention
order-on solitary incident-while petitioner
was already in jail under judicial custodysatisfaction
regarding
possibility
of
repetition
of
said
misconduct-helddetention not sustainable-quashed.
Held: Para-12
Learned counsel for the respondents have
further failed to draw our attention to any
material
which
was
placed
by
the
sponsoring authority before the detaining
authority respondent no.3 for recording his
satisfaction that there was every likelihood
of the petitioner being released on bail and
even the fleeting reference made in the
impugned order that the petitioner was
trying to obtain bail does not appear to be
based on any material whatsoever.
Case Law discussed:
2013 Legal Eagle (Ald.) 2177
(Delivered by Hon'ble B.K. Narayana, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri. J.K.Upadhyay, lerned
AGA for the State and Sri Brij Lal,
learned counsel for the Union of India.
2. This habeas corpus writ petition
has been filed on behalf of the petitioner
Jitendra Kumar with a prayer to isssue a
writ order of direction in the nature of
certiorari
quashing
the
impugned
detention order dated 28.10.2014 passed
by District Magistrate, Ballia (Annexure1) to the writ petition. Further prayer has
been made to issue a writ order or
direction in the nature of habeas corpus
commanding the respondent nos. 1, 2 and
3 to set the petitioner, who is presently
detained in District Jail, Ballia, at liberty.
3. The facts of the case in brief are
that the District Magistrate, Ballia passed
the order dated 28.10.2014 in exercise of
the powers conferred on him under
Section 3(2) of the National Security Act
(hereinafter referred to as 'NSA') while
the petitioner was in District Jail, Ballia
on account of his being accused of case
crime no. 420 of 2014, under Sections
147, 148, 149, 307, 386 and 279 IPC and