IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 09..02..2010 C O R A M The Honourable Mr. H.L. GOKHALE, CHIEF JUSTICE and The Honourable Mr. Justice K.K. SASIDHARAN Writ Appeal No.159 of 2010 1. The Chairman, Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110 069. 2. The Secretary, Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110 069. 3. The Under Secretary, Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110 069. .. Appellants versus 1. N. Kolanchi 2. The Chief Post Master, Sardar Vallabhai Patel National Police Academy, Hyderabad. .. Respondents Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court dated 19.11.2009 in Writ Petition No.8774 of 2009 Praying to issue Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to dispose the petitioner's representation dated 21.4.09 and directing the 2nd respondent to issue Hall- Ticket to the petitioner and to permit him to attend the Civil Service Examination 2009 scheduled to be conducted on 17.05.2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Appellants : Mr. A.L. Somayaji, Senior Counsel for Mr. K. Sridhar For Respondent-1 : Mr. N. Thiagarajan, Senior Counsel for Mr. J. Ponnudurai For Respondent-2 : for Mr. J. Ravindran, A.S.G.I with M.Christella CGSC J U D G M E N T ( Delivered by the Honourable the Chief Justice ) Heard Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. K. Sridhar in support of this appeal. Mr. N. Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel appears on behalf of Mr. J. Ponnudurai for the first respondent; and Mr. J. Ravindran, learned Assistant Solicitor General appears with Ms. M. Christella, learned Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of the second respondent. 2. The appellants before us are the Chairman, Secretary and Under Secretary of the Union Public Service Commission. They seek to challenge the order dated 19.11.2009 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court on the writ petition filed by the first respondent herein, by which order the learned single Judge directed the appellants herein to publish the result of the main examination written by the first respondent for selection in the Civil Services Examination, 2009. 3. The short facts leading to this appeal are this-wise ::- As stated above, the appellant herein was an aspirant for selection in the Civil Services Examination, 2009. As per the Notification dated 6.12.2008 published by the Union Public Service Commission, the last date for receipt of applications from candidates was 5.1.2009. Under the caption "Important", Clause-3 titled "Last Date for Receipt of Applications" stated as follows : "All applications must reach the "Secretary, Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110 069 either by hand or by Post/Speed or by Courier, on or before 5th January, 2009". Further, in Clause-6 of the detailed advertisement, it has been again repeated that the completed application forms must reach the Commission's Office on or before 5.1.2009. In the case of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ applicants from far-off regions which have been specified in the Notification, such as Assam, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Manipur, Nagaland, Tripura, Sikkim, Jammu & Kashmir, Lahaul and Spiti District and Pangi Sub Division of Chamba District of Himachal Pradesh, Andaman and Nicobar Islands or Lakshadweep or abroad, the last date for receipt of the applications is 12.1.2009 till 5.00 p.m. The benefit of the extended time is made available only to those applications which are received by Post/Speed Post from the above mentioned areas/regions. Note-I to this clause again reiterates that candidates should clearly note that the Commission will in no case be responsible for non-receipt of their applications or any delay in receipt thereof on any account whatsoever. It is also stated that no application received after the prescribed last date will be entertained under any circumstances and all the late applications will be summarily rejected. It is, therefore, emphasised that the candidates should ensure that their application should reach the Commission's Office on or before the prescribed last date. Moreover, Clause-5 of Appendix-II to the Notification containing the instructions/guidelines to the candidates makes it abundantly clear that the candidates are advised in their own interest to ensure that the applications reach the Commission's Office on or before the closing date and that applications received in the Commission's Office after the closing date will not be considered. 4. In the instant case, the admitted position is that the first respondent sent his application from Hyderabad on 3.1.2009. According to the postal authorities, it has reached the Office of Union Public Service Commission on 6.1.2009, whereas according to the Union Public Service Commission, it has reached its Office on 7.1.2009. It is not in dispute that as far as the application of the first respondent is concerned, it did not reach the Commission's Office on or before 5.1.2009, which was the last date for receiving the applications. The third respondent-Under Secretary, by his communication dated 26.3.2009, informed the first respondent that the application of the first respondent has been rejected for the reason that it was received late. 5. This being the position, since the first respondent was not allowed to appear in the examination, he filed Writ Petition No.8774 of 2009. The learned single Judge who heard the matter allowed the first respondent to write the Preliminary Examination by passing an interim order on 30.4.2009. Thereafter, the first respondent moved another interim application for declaration of his result in the Preliminary Examination and also to allow him to write the Main Examination. Another learned single Judge allowed that application by passing the second interim order on 21.8.2009. While passing this order, the learned single Judge made it clear in paragraph 4 of his order that his order was passed without prejudice the contentions of the rival parties in the writ petition. In the same paragraph, the learned single Judge also observed that the question of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ maintainability as raised by the learned counsel for the appellants as well as by the first respondent herein was to be decided later on. Further, the learned single Judge has clarified in the last sentence of paragraph 3 of his order that because the result of the preliminary examination was published and the first respondent was permitted to appear in the Main Examination, that will not enure any right in favour of the first respondent in the writ petition. 6. The writ petition was subsequently heard by another learned single Judge, who took the view that since this was the last chance, as contended by the first respondent, to appear in this examination and since he had given the Main Examination also, the aspirations of the first respondent should not be frustrated and therefore, he directed the appellants herein to publish the first respondent's result in the Main Examination. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of. Being aggrieved by this order, the present appeal has been filed. 7. Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants pointed out that a large number of candidates appear for this examination. According to the learned senior counsel, the notification for the examination was very clear, in that specific provisions were made so as to avoid any controversy in this behalf and there is no scope for any further interpretation to permit any such relaxation. Learned senior counsel drew our attention to an order of the Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal No.2544 of 1998, wherein, in the case of late receipt of an application by the Public Service Commission by courier service, the Apex Court had upheld the decision of the Public Service Commission in rejecting such an application form. This order of the Apex Court passed in Civil No.2544 of 1998 was cited before the learned single Judge, as can be seen from paragraph 8 of the impugned order. However, the learned single Judge has not followed the law laid down in this behalf by the Apex Court. Learned senior counsel, therefore, submits that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the order of the learned single Judge set aside. 8. Mr. N. Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent, on the other hand, submitted that this was the last chance for the first respondent to appear in the Civil Services Examination. The first respondent had sent his application before the date by which the application was supposed to be received at the Commission's Office and he had presumed that the application will reach the Commission's Office in time. Learned senior counsel relied upon Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 to submit that the application must be deemed to have been delivered in the ordinary course of postal service. That apart, learned senior counsel submitted that with a view to do complete justice, it would be desirable that the result of the first respondent is directed to be declared, as has been done by the learned single Judge. This is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ because, the first respondent had appeared in the Preliminary Examination as well the Main Examination under the orders of this Court and therefore, this Court should not interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act cannot help to draw any inference that the application reached on 5.1.2009 when in fact it has not. 9. We have noted the submissions made on either side. The clauses of the Examination Notification published by the Union Public Service Commission quoted above are very clear and there is no ambiguity with regard to the same. The clauses make it very clear that when an application is sent by post, either by ordinary post or by speed post, it must reach the Union Public Service Commission on or before 5.1.2009. The relaxation is given only in case of candidates from certain far certain flung territories. The clauses quoted above also make this amply clear, inasmuch as the candidates are put on notice that their applications will not be entertained if they did not reach the Commission's Office before the date provided in that behalf. This is principally so because a large number of candidates appear in the Civil Services Examination and if any latitude is allowed in case of one candidate, there is no reason why it should not be allowed in the case of other candidates. The first respondent should have been more careful, knowing fully well that this was his last opportunity to appear in the said examination. Further, the interim orders passed during the pendency of the writ petition were sought by the first respondent and he cannot make any capital out of them. That apart, the learned single Judge who granted the second interim order quoted above made it clear that the order does not create any right in favour of the first respondent. Scetion 27 of General Clauses Act cannot helpto draw any interference that the application reached on 5.1.2009 when in fact it has not. 10. Reliance is also placed on an order passed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, which is in the case of service of an application by registered post. That order was passed in the case of C.W.P. No.3745 of 1999 decided on 10.1.2000, where, in a similar situation, the Delhi High Court has also taken the view that the application should have reached the Commission's Office before the stipulated date and if it does not so reach, the same cannot be entertained. 11. In view of what is stated above, the order passed by the learned single Judge can no longer be retained. The writ appeal is, therefore, allowed. The order of the learned single Judge is set aside. The writ petition filed by the first respondent will stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, M.P. No.1 of 2010 is closed. The appellants-Commission need not declare the result of the first respondent in the examination in which he had appeared. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 12. Learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent makes an oral application for leave to appeal. The request is rejected. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ab To 1. The Chief Post Master, Sardar Vallabhai Patel National Police Academy, Hyderabad. 2. The Chairman, Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110 069. 3. The Secretary, Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110 069. 4. The Under Secretary, Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110 069. 1 cc To Mr. K. Sridhar, Advocate, SR.8235 1 cc To Mr.J. Ravindran, Advocate, SR.8596 1 cc To Mr.J. Ponnudurai, Advocate, SR.8373 Writ Appeal No.159 of 2010 kv(co) pmk.17.2.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/