(1.) THE reason assigned for rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Animal Attendant advertised through public notice dated 02.09.2011 is that the petitioner's application was received after the cut off date. The cut off date was 01.10.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that his application was put in transmission through speed post on 30.09.2011. The application apparently was put in transmission too late to have reached before the cut off date. The closing dates in advertisements cannot be kept open for receipt of applications beyond the time allowed in a recruitment process where thousands of applications may be received for consideration for selection. The question of postal delays has been answered by a Full Bench decision of this Court in Rahul Prabhakar v. Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar, : 1997(3) SCT 526. The Full Bench has held that application forms sent by post but delivered after the expiry of the last date and time fixed cannot be entertained either by relaxation of conditions or by enlarging the time on the ground that the delay was only on the part of the postal authorities.
(2.) IN Union of India v. Mohd. Nazim, : 1980(1) SCC 284 : AIR 1980 AIR SC 431 the Supreme Court dealt with provisions of the Post Office Act, 1898 and the Contract Act, 1872 and in the light of Sections 2(f), 17 and 23(3) of the 1898 Act and Section 182 of the latter Act held that the Post Office is not an agent of the sender of articles rather it is really a branch of the public office subject to the provisions of the Post Office Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
(3.) MR . Nehra, to buttress this argument relies on State of Bihar & Ors. v. Amrendra Kumar Mishra, : 2006 (4) S.C.T. 497 : (2006) 12 SCC 561 to submit that postal delay by itself cannot be a ground to take a sympathetic view. All that arises is a statutory presumption of delivery and no more.