TARUN KANT PANT Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

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

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

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