S.UMA Vs. REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein, who claims to have the necessary qualifications for the post of Assistant Professor for the School of Management Faculty, had sent an application on 07.08.2019 through speed post. The notification issued by the respondent University stipulates that the last date for receipt of completed application is on 09.08.2019 by 05.00 p.m. Since the petitioner's application was received by the respondent on 10.08.2019, which is after the last date prescribed by the respondent University, the petitioner's demand draft enclosed along with the application was returned on 19.09.2019 along with the impugned letter, which is put under challenge in the present writ petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the petitioner was fully qualified to be considered for the post of Assistant Professor in the School of Management Faculty, she had obtained a demand draft on 18.07.2019 itself, which is a prerequisite for the application and since she was waiting for the experience certificate to be supplied to her, there had occurred a few days delay. However, even prior to the last date prescribed for receipt of the completed application, she had sent the application by speed post on 07.08.2019 at 03.00 p.m., itself. In view of the postal delay, the application came to be received by the respondent on 10.08.2019. As such, learned counsel would submit that the delay caused during the transit of the application from the petitioner to the University should not be put against the petitioner.

(3.) Countering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the Notification dated 08.07.2019 clearly stipulates that the last date for receipt of the completed application is on 09.08.2019 and that the petitioner ought to have ensured that the application reaches by the respondent by 09.08.2019. Since such application was received after the last date had expired, there is no infirmity on the part of the respondent in returning the demand draft to the petitioner. Even otherwise he would submit that pursuant to the expiry of the last date, they have proceeded with scrutinizing of the application and have also short listed the candidates. However, personal interview is yet to be conducted for the short listed candidates.