RAJNISH KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri I.M. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri K.K. Pandey for the respondent no.3 and Sri S. Chaudhary, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2.

(2.) This appeal questions the correctness of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 18.7.2014 whereby the appellants have been refused a mandamus allowing them to appear in the counselling for the post of Ayurvedic Pharmacist. The appellants contend that they have completed their diploma in pharmacy, and against the advertisement made on 2.6.2014 the appellants had applied for recruitment to the post of Ayurvedic Pharmacist. The last date for receipt of the applications prescribed was 15.6.2014 by which date the applications had to be received in the office of the Director, Ayurvedic Services, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.

(3.) All the appellants contend that they had dispatched their applications through registered post and that the same had been delivered by the post office to the Medical and Health, Department of the respondent-State. However, while executing the delivery, the postal delivery agent instead of serving the said applications on the Director, Ayurvedic Services, U.P. Lucknow, had delivered it wrongly to the Director General, Medical and Health, Swasthya Bhavan, Lucknow. The contention, therefore, is that in the absence of any fault or defect in the mode, adopted by the appellants, the error committed by the post office in delivering the letters on the wrong addressee cannot be a ground to deny the appellants the opportunity to be considered for appointment on such posts that were advertised on 2.6.2014. The contention, therefore, is that the learned Single Judge has not correctly appreciated the aforesaid background and has erroneously refused to exercise discretion in law. The writ petition deserved to be allowed.