ANNADA PRASAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner serving as Medical Officer in the Primary Health Centre, Kotpad in the district of Koraput, made an application to take the entrance examination for selection of candidates for undergoing Two-Year P.G. Course in one of the Government Medical Colleges in the State pursuant to admission notice which stipulated that applications in the prescribed form should reach the Convenor-Principal, M.K.C.G. Medical College, Berhampur by 30-5-88 during office hours by registered post only. He posted his application on 27-5-88 at the post-office located in the campus of M.K.C.G. Medical College, Berhampur. Though the post-office is located at a distance of 100 yards from the office of the Convenor, the application sent by registered post was received in the office of the Convenor on 1-6-88. His application was treated as not to have been received within the time stipulated, i.e., by 30-5-88. Hence, he was not allowed to take the examination. The petitioner has filed this writ application for a declaration that his application in the facts and circumstances should be deemed to have been received in the office of the Convenor by the stipulated date and for a mandamus or an appropriate order directing the opposite parties to admit him to the course.

(2.) The short question that arises, therefore, is if in the facts and circumstances, the application was received by the Convenor on 27-5-88 or 1-6-88. It is contended by Mr. R.K. Mohapatra, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that when the admission notice as per Annexure-5 stipulated that application should be delivered by despatching the same " by registered post only and not by any other manner'', the post-office acted as the agent of the addressee and delivery to the post-office on 27-5-88 was delivery to the Convenor on that date. Mr. R.K. Patra, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the opposite parties however, submitted that the petitioner should have despatched his application sufficiently ahead of time taking into account the postal delays that some times occur. The opposite parties were not responsible for the delivery of postal article on 1-6-88. Since the application was not received in the office of the Convenor by 30-5-88 during office hours but on 1-6-88, there was no illegality in the rejection of the application.

(3.) Counsel have referred us to and relied upon some authorities which we shall notice and consider by and by. The principle that can be culled from the decisions may be stated in the following manner. Where delivery can be made in a mode at the option of the sender, the agency through which delivery is made acts as the agent of the sender whereas if delivery is made by way of despatch in the mode stipulated or prescribed by the addressee, the agency through which the article is despatched acts as the agent of the addressee.