Post Office Acts As Agent Of Govt Recruiter But Latter Cannot Be Bound By Any Delay In Receipt Of Application Form- Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a Writ Petition of a Government Job Applicant, whose submission was delayed by the Post Office. The Court held that even though the post office acts as an agent of the Respondent (Recruiter), the Respondent cannot be bound by any delay in the receipt of the application form.
“Though the post office acts as an agent of the respondent but the respondents cannot be bound by any delay on the receipt of the application form and further the respondents cannot be allowed to wait for time immemorial in that regard”, Justice Vikas Budhwar noted.
Advocate Sanjay Maurya appeared for the Petitioner and Standing Counsel Shailendra Singh appeared for Respondents no. 1 and 2.
The State Government made a policy decision to make short-term appointments for one year to cope with the shortage of regular teachers. This decision was made in response to the growing shortage of teachers in government schools. The government has issued a series of government orders (GOs) to implement this policy. The first GO sets out the general principles for making short-term appointments. The second GO provided more specific details about the process of making short-term appointments. The third GO dealt with the appointment of teachers in Sanskrit Vidyalayas. In line with these GOs, the government has issued a notification for the recruitment of Sanskrit teachers for 14 posts, including Sukhnandan Sanskrit Pathshala. The notification was issued on June 15, 2023. Applicants were required to submit their applications by June 23, 2023. The applicant in this case submitted his application by post on June 19, 2023. However, the application was not received by the institution until June 24, 2023. The Petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court, seeking directions to the respondents to consider his application. The Petitioner contended that he should be considered for the job because the delay in delivering the application was due to the post office.
The Court placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in the cases of Neena Chaturvedi Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission [(2010) 4 UPLBEC 2876] and Rajendra Patel Vs. State of U.P., [2016 (1) UPLBEC 331]. The Court held that the government's deadline was clear and unambiguous and that the applicant could not twist or tailor it to his advantage. The Court also noted that the postal delay was not the applicant's fault, but it was still his responsibility to ensure that his application was received by the government on time.
The Court observed, “There is an additional factor which also needs to be considered that the terms set out in the Government Orders as referred to above and the advertisement in question are quite specific, loud and clear and they cannot be allowed to be twisted or tailored in a manner which suits to the individual applicants. The Courts of law, in case, gives elasticity and leverage as sought by the writ petitioner then obviously the selection proceedings cannot be concluded as even otherwise law is very clear that cut of date is sometime painful to one and beneficial to other. Since in the present case the application so submitted (hard copy was received after the due date) thus merely because the writ petitioner had communicated the same through Email on 19.06.2023 would not make any difference as the two exercises are dependent which in entirety has not been adhered to”.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Pankaj Kumar Priyam v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
