IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.880 of 2011 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 6281/2011) 1. Sudha Kumari Sinha D/O Chandeshwar Prasad W/O Satyendra Kumar R/O Village - Bakaur, P.O. - Paithana, P.S. - Islampur, Distt. - Nalanda ......Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Principle Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 2. The District Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif 3. The District Programme Officer, Nalanda at Biharsharif 4. Child Development Project Officer, Islampur, Nalanda ..Respondents ---------------------------------- 6 08-11-2011 Heard the parties. The appellant preferred a writ petition bearing CWJC no. 6281/ 2011 on 6-4-2011 to raise a grievance that although she had filed her application form for selection and recruitment to the post of Lady Supervisor under Nalanda district, on-line through computer on 18-7-2010 and had already sent a copy of the application form through registered post on 19-7-2010, she had wrongly not been considered for the said appointment as was apparent from a select list (annexure-3 to the writ petition) dated 7-3-2011. The writ court dismissed the writ petition summarily on 8-4-2011 on the ground of delay and laches. That order is under appeal. 2 Learned counsel for the appellant has rightly submitted that the writ court failed to notice that cause of action arose for the writ petitioner/ appellant only when she came to know in March, 2011 that her name was left out of consideration and not included in the select list. The writ court was guided only by return of the copy of application form sent through registered post, to the writ petitioner on 28-07-2010 without disclosing any reason. We have been shown a merit list for Lady Supervisors which is dated 23-9-2011,only to highlight that the selection process is still going on and, hence, the writ petition should not be dismissed only on the ground of delay. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find merit in the submission advanced on behalf of the appellant that the writ petition should not have been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Instead of sending the matter back to the writ court, we have applied our mind to the facts brought on record through counter affidavit and supplementary 3 counter affidavit. There is no dispute that application form sent on behalf of the appellant on-line through computer had been received by the concerned authority well before last date, that is, 21-7-2010. In fact it was admittedly received on 18-7-2010. The only issue to be decided is whether as per terms of the advertisement contained in annexure-1 to the writ petition, the last date, that is, 21-7-2010, was prescribed for receipt of application form on-line or it applied also for receipt of copy of the application form by registered post. A bare perusal of Clause 1 of the advertisement read with Clause 1 of the procedure for appointment which is mentioned in the advertisement (annexure-1), it is apparent that application form was required to be submitted on-line only. The further stipulation was only in respect of copy of the application form which was required to be sent to a particular officer by registered post. Clause 2 of the advertisement prescribed 21-7-2010 as last date for receipt of application form. No last date was prescribed for receipt of copy of application form by registered post. 4 In such a situation, benefit of doubt, if any, had to be given to the writ petitioner, the appellant. In view of aforesaid discussion, the appeal as well as the writ petition is allowed. The order under appeal is set aside and the concerned respondents are directed to consider the case of appellant/ writ petitioner for selection along with cases of other similar persons in accordance with law. It is once again made clear that the case of appellant/ writ petitioner shall be considered on merits by treating her application form to have been received within time. It is clarified that an interim order was passed in favour of the appellant on 10-8-2011 directing the respondents to either keep one vacancy unfilled or else all the appointments will be subject to result of this appeal. In that view of the matter, the respondents shall have no difficulty in considering the case of the appellant on merits. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Shivaji Pandey, J.)