SANJAY KUMAR KUMIYAL Vs. UTTARAKHAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONSE to an advertisement published by the respondent/Commission entailed the appellants to sit in the screening test. After the appellants succeeded, by a letter dated 30th December, 2010, they were asked by the Commission to submit Traditional Application Forms. Appellants posted those Forms through speed post. Thereafter appellants came to learn that since the postal authority delayed in reaching those Forms to the Commission, Commission did not consider the Application Forms of the appellants and, accordingly, they were prevented from participating in the further selection process.

(2.) IN the writ petition, petitioners (appellants herein) contended that the Commission engaged the postal authority as its agent, and inasmuch as, petitioners reached to the postal authority, the Forms in question, well in advance, it was inappropriate on the part of the Commission not to accept those Application Forms. The Commission denied having engaged postal authority as its agent for the purpose of collection of those Forms. The only question, therefore, before the writ court, in regard to the challenge thrown to the action of the Commission in not processing the applications of the petitioners further, was whether the Commission engaged postal authority as its agent for collection of those Forms or not? A learned Single Judge, who dealt with the writ petition, held against the petitioners and in favour of the Commission and, accordingly, dismissed the writ petition. While doing so, the learned Judge took notice of the letter of the Commission dated 30th December, 2010 for the purpose of answering the issue raised in the writ petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing in support of the appeal contended that though date and time of receipt of the Application Forms had been specified in the letter and in addition to that it was provided that receipt thereafter will not be acceptance of the Application Forms, but the fact remains that there was a direction to submit either by post or personally and, accordingly, it must be deemed that the Commission intended service of the applications upon it through the postal authority within time, if the same had been handed over to the postal authority on time. In this connection, learned counsel for the appellants cited the judgment of Honble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Dhirendra Kumar versus Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, reported in A.I.R. 1954 Supreme Court 424 and also the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa versus M/s Patney and Co., reported in A.I.R. 1959 Supreme Court 1070. We do not think those judgments have any application in so far as this case is concerned, inasmuch as, those judgments were rendered in connection with Section 50 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Section 50 of the said Act applies to performance of any promise. In the instant case, there was no question of performance of any promise since there was no promise at all.