MAHESH BHOOTRA Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three writ petitions involve a common question and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) IN response to an advertisement for the posts of Hindi Typists issued by the United INdia INsurance Co. Ltd. , the petitioners applied for being appointed against some of them. The candidates were to undergo a written test as well a type test. The written test was held on 30. 10. 1988 and the petitioners appeared at that and passed in it. Thereafter the type test was to be held on 26. 11. 1988 at Shree Man Commercial INstitute, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur at 11. O' clock. INtima-tions to the candidates for appearing at this test are alleged to have been despat-ched from Jaipur Regional Officer of the said INsurance Company under certi-ficate of the posting but it appears that this intimation did not reach a large number of candidates in time and out of 759 candidates called for appearing at that test, only 651 candidates responded and 108 candidates from various places including Jodhpur did not appear. It is also not in dispute that in Jodhpur the intimations for the type test had not been delivered by the postal authorities in time to at least 20 of such candidates, and the same were delivered after 26. 1. 1. 1988. IN this situation, it does appear that a large number of these candidates could not appear at the examination for no fault of their and the learned counsel appearing for respondents states that the INsurance Company will have no objection to allow them one more opportunity to appear at the type test, provided, it does not form a precedent. IN view of this statement of the learned counsel for the respondents-INsurance Company, we need not decide the question whether the delay on part of the postal authorities in every case would or would not be a ground for the INsurance Company to allow the candidates any further opportunity to appear at a test to be held again by the INsurance Company. IN the peculiar circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that in the interest of justice, it would be proper that these 108 candidates, who could not appear at the type test held on 26. 11. 1988, may be given one more opportunity to take that test now. The result of the test held on 26. 11. 1988, had, of course, been announced but the candidates who passed in that test have not been called for interview not any appointments have yet been made and, therefore, there will be no complications if these 108 candidates are now allowed to appear at the type test. But this would not form a precedent.