RODU LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the relevant documents, placed on the record, as well as the reply filed by the respondents to the writ petition.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that in pursuance of an advertisement, applications were invited by the office of the respondent No. 2 from prospective candidates for appointment to the post of Agricultural Supervisor. In pursuance of the said advertisement, the petitioner had submitted all relevant particulars in lieu of which he was called for interview on 19th July, 93. The petitioner complied with the said communication and after due process of selection, selected candidated including the petitioner were directed to report on duly latest by 16.12.93, failing which their appointment shall be treated as cancelled. The grievance of the petitioner is that he come to know too late about his appointment on the said past because the appointment letter could not be served on him in time and as a result of this, he could not report for duty in the office of respondent No. 2 on or before the intended date as a result of communication gap on account of circumstances beyond the petitioner's control and for which he cannot be blamed, on account of the postal delays. This fact is borne out from Annexure -R/1 to the reply, filed by the respondents, the true copy of which has also been annexed by the petitioner alongwith the writ petition vide Annexure - 6. A perusal of the said document reveals that the petitioner had not refused the receipt of the said registered letter since the postal authorities have clearly mentioned that the said registered article could not be served on the petitioner as it did not pertain to the concerned Branch office falling within the residence of the petitioner and hence it was returned back to the post office at Bundi unserved. The petitioner became aware of the aforesaid communication at a later stage that he was to report for duty at respondent's office latest by 16th December'93, whereas he could not report for duty till 2nd of August'94, when a second communication was issued to him calling upon him to report for duty w.e.f. 16th December'93.

(3.) IN the reply to the writ petition filed by the respondents, they have controverted the contentions of the petitioner on the grounds inter -alia that the petitioner in fact knew about the date of joining and he had purposely delayed to report for duty. However, the respondents have not denied the despatch of the earlier communication, wherein the postal authority has mentioned that since the said article does not belong to this branch office, therefore, it should be sent to Bundi head office for which delay has been caused. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this regard that it goes to show that the appointment letter was never received by the petitioner and in fact it was delivered at a wrong station by the respondent -authorities. This fact is also fortified by the letter dated 25.3.94 sent by the post office of Neem -Ka -Kheda to respondent No. 2 that no registry was received in the name of petitioner by this Branch.