IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 8249 of 2010 1. RAM CHANDRA KUMAR S/O SRI LAL BABU PRASAD PERMANENT R/O VILL PUNARWARA, P.O. CHAK SHAMBU, P.S.RUNNISAIDPUR, DISTT-SITAMARHI, BIHAR Versus 1. THE SECRETARY,BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICES COMMISSION 15, JAWARHARLAL NEHRU MARG, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 2. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 15, JAWARHALAL NEHRU MARG, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 3. THE DRUG CONTROLLER, HEALTH DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA WITH CWJC No 8719 of 2010 1. PANKAJ KUMAR PRABHAT S/O SRI GOPAL BHAGHAT R/O VILL MORIYAMA, P.O.DATIYANA, P.S.BIKRAM, DISTT-PATNA, BIHAR Versus 1. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 15, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU MARG, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 2. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICES COMMISSION 15, JAWARHARLAL NEHRU MARG, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA *** For the petitioners : Mr Rajesh Dayal, Advocate For the BPSC : Mr Nadim Seraj, Advocate *** 2 23.09.2010 Both these writ petitions are in relation to the examination for appointment of Drug Inspector (Allopath) being conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission. Both petitioners, who have the requisite qualification and the experience, made applications for being permitted to sit in the examination. Upon scrutiny of their applications in both cases, certain deficiency as to the eligibility, were found and petitioners were informed by letter dated 22.07.2009 by the Commission regarding the same. In the said, it was also clearly stated that the deficiencies must be made up by 5.30 pm on 03.08.2009. It is not the case of either of the petitioners that the deficiencies were such which 2 would take time to remove yet so far as the writ petitioners of the first writ petition is concerned, he despatched the experience certificate by Speed Post on 03.08.2009 at 3.29 pm from Muzaffarpur. So far as petitioner in the second writ petition is concerned, he despatched it by Registered Post from Bikram, District – Patna on 31.07.2009. BPSC, in turn, informed them just before the examination that is on 10.04.2010 that their applications, having been considered, were rejected. That is a pre- printed letter. Obviously what they meant was that the deficiency having not been made up, their candidatures were being cancelled. It is against this, the petitioners have come to this Court. In view of the facts, as noted above, even though petitioners had all requisite qualifications and experience, for this technical default, they have been debarred. The default being that they did not submit the papers timely. In the first case, it would be seen that as against the requirement to submit the paper by 5.30 pm on 03.08.2009, it was despatched by Post from Muzaffarpur on the same day at about 4 pm. In the second case, it was despatched just two days before. The intervening days being Saturday and Sunday, 03.08.2009 being a Monday. They took the risk of delayed despatch. The action of BPSC, upon not having received them and rejecting their candidatures, cannot, thus, be faulted. The petitioners were required to act with promptitude in which they failed. They cannot blame BPSC for the action it has taken. The result is that the writ petitions do not merit consideration and are dismissed as such. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)