IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 87 of 2011 Ishrat Husain S/o Late Mr. Riasat Husain, R/o Kabir Colony, Jamalpur, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh. ………….. Petitioner Versus 1. High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital through Registrar General. 2. The Superintendent Post & Telegraph Office (EMS Speed Post) Aligarh, U.P). 3. The Superintendent Post & Telegraph Office (EMS Speed Post) Nain ital, District Nainital. .…...……. Respondents Present: Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Siddharth Sah, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. V.B.S. Negi, Assistant Solicitor General for Union of India/respondent Nos. 2 & 3., Coram : Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, Chief Justice Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, Judge Date: 6th May, 2011 JUDGMENT Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) The advertisement, published on 31st March, 2011 by the Registrar General of this Court, required the responders to the advertisement to obtain an experience certificate. This certificate was obtained by the petitioner on 14th April, 2011. On 14th April, 2011, petitioner completed all necessary formalities for responding to the said advertisement. On 14th April, 2011, petitioner posted his response. Subsequent thereto the postal packet containing his response returned to him with the postal endorsement that the addressee has refused to accept the response on the ground that the same was tendered subsequent to 18th April, 2011. In the present writ petition, petitioner is seeking a direction upon respondent No.1 to accept the said response. 2 2. The advertisement made it absolutely clear that the response to the said advertisement must reach the Registrar General of this Court by 5.00 P.M. of 18th April, 2011. Admittedly, the response of the petitioner to the said advertisement did not reach the Registrar General of this Court at or before 5.00 P.M. of 18th April, 2011. In the circumstances, in terms of the said advertisement, the Registrar General of this Court was incompetent to accept the said response of the petitioner. If we direct the Registrar General of this Court to accept the said response of the petitioner, we shall be interfering with a notification, as was advertised, which we cannot do. The advertisement did not indicate that one of the modes of tendering the said response to the Registrar General of this Court is by registered post. In such circumstance, why, instead of taking some other recourse for reaching the said response to the Registrar General of this Court apart from approaching the postal authority, was required to be indicated in the writ petition to highlight special equity, if any, in favour of the petitioner. No such attempt has been made. We are, therefore, unable to accede to the prayer of the petitioner. 3. The writ petition is dismissed. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) ( Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 06.05.2011 P. Singh