IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7552 of 2009 Ram Narayan Pandey . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 3. 08.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was an applicant for a contractual appointment on the post of Accountant for the period of 11 months under an Advertisement dated 17.9.2007 in the District of Rohtas under the ATMA scheme. He stood at Serial No. 2 of the merit list. The person at serial No. 1 did not join. The respondents dispatched a communication for joining belatedly with an incorrect address. It never reached the petitioner. The person at Serial No. 3 came to be appointed. The petitioner then filed this writ application. The contract of candidate at serial No. 3 was not renewed after 3.12.2008. The respondents then published a fresh advertisement on 29.5.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had disclosed his postal address as village and P.O. Gorakhparasi in the District of Rohtas (Sasaram). The respondents sent the communication to him at Karakat, Sasaram. The Pin Code was wrongly mentioned as 82115 in place of 802214. Additionally the proof of dispatch by 2 speed post placed by the respondents demonstrates that it was dispatched on 18.11.2007 and not 8.11.2007 as contended by them. Joining had to be submitted by 19.11.2007. The person at Serial No. 3 of the merit panel having been wrongly appointed, there is no justification for not considering the claim for appointment of the petitioner. Counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner had not furnished any Pin Code number with his details of address. The village Gorakhparasi to which the petitioner belongs falls within the Karakat Block. The duration of the appointment was for 11 months which is long over. Issues have therefore become academic and the Court should not interfere more particularly because a fresh advertisement has been issued on 29.5.2009 and another incumbent appointed whose services have also been renewed till August, 2011, but subject to the result of the writ application. The petitioner had disclosed the name of his village with a Post Office situated in that village. The respondents were required to address the call letter to him properly. If the Block consists of several villages, to merely mention the name of the Block is enough to conclude that the communication 3 had not been dispatched at the proper address. The postman in all likelihood having found the address incomplete may either have thrown away the letter or returned it as undelivered to the dispatching station. The Pin Code of an address is displayed at the Post Office. The respondents should have been more careful in mentioning the correct Code specially when the petitioner had not mentioned any Pin Code in his address. If the address of dispatch was wrong and incomplete there shall be a presumption that it never reached its destination. Additionally, the speed post dispatch annexed to the counter affidavit makes it apparent that it was so done on 18.11.2007 and not 8.11.2007 requiring the petitioner to join on 19.11.2007. The time period cannot be stated to be reasonable by any standard. The appointment was to be from 19.11.2007 for a period of 11 months. Thereafter renewal was an inchoate right as the contract may or may not have been extended dependent on a hoste of other factors. The writ petition can easily be dismissed on that ground as the time period for which the benefit of the appointment may have flowed is long over. The other option available to the Court is to grant suitable compensation to the 4 petitioner. The Court cannot loose sight of the fact that the petitioner first represented as early as January, 2008 well within the period of 11 months. To deny relief on the aforesaid ground may leave the petitioner with a lurking sense of injustice for having been made to suffer for no fault of his. In the meantime, the respondents have published a fresh advertisement on 29.5.2009 and another incumbent appointed for an extended tenure till August, 2011. He is not a party to the proceedings. The duty of the Court under Article 226 in appropriate cases is to mould the relief in the entirety of the facts and circumstances as held in (1996) 5 SCC 54 ( Shangrila Food Products Ltd. v. LIC) at Paragraph-11 as follows:- “11. It is well settled that the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can take cognisance of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and pass appropriate orders to give the parties complete and substantial justice. This jurisdiction of the High Court, being extraordinary, is normally exercisable keeping in mind the principles of equity. One of the ends of the equity is to promote honesty and fair play. If there be any unfair advantage gained by a party priorly, before invoking the 5 jurisdiction of the High Court, the Court can take into account the unfair advantage gained and can require the party to shed the unfair gain before granting relief……” The relief therefore is required to be moulded in the facts of the case. The present incumbent has an extended tenure till August, 2011. His original tenure of 11 months has already expired. The right in him is therefore inchoate and not vested. The Court therefore directs that on expiry of his extended tenure, the petitioner shall be given the contract appointment for a period of 11 months only. The petitioner by virtue of the present order shall not have any vested right to continue after the period of 11 months. That is the period he would have had if he had joined in due time after receipt of his appointment letter. Thereafter the matter shall remain within the discretion of the respondents in accordance with the terms of the contract. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)