1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDIsCATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Pet. No. 5302/03 Bhinva Ram Vs. State & Ors. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Date of order : 27.2.2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, J. Mr. Mukesh Vyas for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, Govt. Counsel. BY THE COURT: By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged action of the respondents for not sending call letter for interview in time for the post of Physical Education Teacher Grade-III. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that pursuant to the advertisement dated 28.7.2003 annexure/1, petitioner had submitted an application for consideration of his candidature for the post of Physical Education Teacher Grade-III however, only for the reason that the call letter for the interview was received on 3.9.2003 2 at Deedwana Distt. Nagour, he was not in a position to remain present before Interview Board on the same day at Sri Ganganagar. In that regard the petitioner has placed on record original envelopes containing the date when the letter was delivered at Deedwana. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that so far as they are concerned, intimation letter for interview dated 31.8.2003 was dispatched to the petitioner without delay however, if due to postal department's lapse it was not delivered in time then the petitioner cannot claim any benefit. More so, when even in the advertisement at para 6, it was notified that the date of interview would be 3.9.2003, hence taking benefit of said clause of advertisement, it is submitted that it was totally the lapse of the petitioner for not putting appearance in the interview. It is lastly contended that even in the news paper, a circular was published giving the date of interview yet if the petitioner has failed to take notice of the said news also, no relief should be given to the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Perusal of annexure/3 reveals that interview call letter dated 31.8.2003 was dispatched by the respondents on 01.9.2003 though 3 the petitioner is residing in Deedwana District, Nagour and the interview for the post of Physical Education Teacher Grade-III was to be conducted at Sri Ganganagar due to dispatching of the interview letter on 01.9.2003, it could be received by the petitioner only on 3.9.2003 which otherwise was the date of interview itself. If a candidate is residing at a distant place and he receives call letter for interview on the date of interview itself then the obvious consequence is that the candidate cannot attend the interview Board. In such circumstances, the issue remains for consideration is as to whether the petitioner can be deprived from his right of consideration. For consideration of the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents I have perused para 6 of the advertisement where date of interview was fixed as 3.9.2003. According to the respondents, the date having been fixed and remain in the knowledge of all concerned, even on the date of advertisement itself subsequent non appearance in the interview on the date fixed cannot be said to be due to delay in dispatching of call letter. It is true that the date of interview was fixed while issuing the advertisement itself but ten facts remains that whether all the applicants were to face interview on the date so fixed or it is only the few meritorious candidates were to appear before the interview board. Learned counsel has admitted that it is only the 4 meritorious candidates who were sent call letters and they alone were required to appear in the interview. The aforesaid fact shows that though a date for interview was fixed but only meritorious candidates were to appear before the interview Board and the merit position of the candidate was determined by the Government thus, it could have come to the notice of the candidate concerned only when he receives the call letter for interview. It is precisely for this reason alone that the respondents dispatched the call letter to the meritorious candidates only. Thus, so far as the first plea taken by the respondents is concerned, same cannot be accepted in view of the discussion made above. The second plea taken by the respondents pertains to issuance of the circular in the news paper namely Dainik Bhaskar, Sri Ganganagar edition. It was contended that even the newspaper had indicated the date of interview thus, at least the petitioner should have appeared for interview after taking note of the date so indicated in the newspaper. This aspect is also considered by me. Perusal of news flash in the newspaper which otherwise is said to be a circular by the respondents demonstrate that even therein it has not been indicated as to who are the meritorious candidates required to appear for interview because the news flash does not indicate even cut of marks so that a 5 candidate can even assess his merit position and may report for interview. Thus, even with the flash of news, the position remains the same because it is only the meritorious candidates who were required to report for interview and precisely for this reason that the respondents dispatched call letters informing meritorious candidates about their call for interview otherwise there was hardly any need to send separate call letter to each candidate. In view of the above, the second plea raised by the respondents is also not acceptable. In the present matter, since the respondents themselves did not dispatch the call letters after giving sufficient time for postal authorities to get the call letter served on each candidate, it cannot even be said to be lapse of postal authorities because dispatch of letter is dated 1.9.2003 and the date of interview was 3.9.2003. In view of the above, none of the pleas raised by the respondents can be accepted rather the facts discussed above shows that it is solely due to the lapse of respondents that petitioner could not attend the interview board. The respondents are thus, directed to interview the petitioner for consideration of his candidature for the Physical Teacher Education Teacher Grade-III and if candidates with less merit have been given appointment then the petitioner should also be given appointment within the period of two months from the date of 6 passing of this order. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that in the interview the original documents of the candidates pertaining to qualifications are considered, thus, no separate marks for interview exists. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with the direction aforesaid. (MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI), J. ns.