HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR PETITEONER! bharmendra Singh Ratrey, aged Aout 18 years, S/o Resham Lai. R/o Khai. (Bhatapara) P.0. Pshariya, Tehsil and bistrict- Janjgir Champa (C.6.). Vsrsus KtSKUNUt:1 ;l5*'itj|g^! State of Chhattisqarh, Through Secretary, Ministry of Educotion. Raipur (C.6.) Directorate Technicol Eds Throigh its Dirsctor, Raipu" (C.6.) F'yking Courier-. Near State Bank of India, Akaltora. Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.6. POST FOR ORDER ON/£.z4&&ugust, 2003 SdT- L.C. /6-^_August, 2003 .••.• fl PETITEONER; Writ Petition No.2328 of 20( Dharmendra Singh Ratrey, aqed sbout 18 years, S/o ReAara Lssl, R,/o Khaija (Bhstapara) P.0. Pchariya, and District- Janjgir Shampa Versus (C.&. R 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Sscretciry, Ministry of Education, Raipur (C.S.) 2. Di 3. teTi lon. its Director, ;.&.: F'yking Courier, Near State Bank of India, Aka!tafs, Distt. Jonjgir Chanp•o (C.S.) Present;- Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate: Shri Sanjay' K. Agraf.'al, by. Advocerte Seneral For the petitloner For the respondents No. 1 d 2. ^ (Passed on/gA.-August, 2003) 1. By this u'rit petition uno'er' Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of Indla, the petitioner has questioned the decision of the respondent No.2 for not cailim him for counseling for admission to the Bochelor of Englneering Course. The petitioner's pstitian is that he has cieared the 12 examination wi+h 68.67 marks. He- belongs to the Scheduled Coste categor,!'. H!S rriark shest is Annexure P/l. The petitioner intends to seek adraisslon in the Bachelor of Engineering course and that te why he appiied for adrnission by a properly filled in form ond rtie same was sent to the Respondent No.2 through Flykine Couner, Akaltora i.e. Respondent No.3, for that the Rsspondent No.3 charged extra amount to sent his form on c faster speed. The petitionsr duly handed over the form to the Regpondent No.3 on 23.6.2003 for deiivering the scme to the Respondent No.2 snd m token thereof the ftespondent No.3 issued a receipt Annexure P/3. nie admission notice is Annexure P/4. When the petitioner checked hia name on the Internet ebout the dats of counseiing, as his name was not included in the list, therefore, he made an enquiry from the ftespondent No.2 as to why his nome had not been ineluded in the list, the reply was given to him that the petitioner''s fo»m was not r'ecelved in the office. Tnereafter the petitioner made w enquiry from the Respondent No.3 and on 28.7.2003 form of the petitioner peturned u'ith the endorsement 'r-efused to accept'. A copy of the envelope is cnnexed herewith as Annexure P/5. But, number of condidotes whose percentage wos iess than the petitioner had been invited for counseling. As the "espondent No.2 r-efused to accept the pstitioner's form, the petitioner's nome was not included in the eounseling list. The couriseting has started far the first sernester from 1 August 2003 and it witi eontinue till 10 August 2003. The newspaper cutting in this context is filed as Annexure P/6. 2. In para 5.7 of the petition the petitioner categorically mentioned that he has got the reasonable opprehension thot the form was not sent by the Respondent No.3 to the Respondent No.2 because in annexur'e P/5 no one has put his signature. The last date for submitting the form was 7.7.^)03 and the petitioner had sent ths form through Respondent No.3 on 23 June, 2CX)3 if the Respondent No.2 had refused to accept the form of the petittoner then the Respondent No.3 ought to hwe returned the enve'ope to the petitione" within the stipulated tims. On account of the attitude of the Respondsnt No. 2 and 3 the petitioner's whoie ysor is going to be wcssted, It is, therefore, requested that the Respondent No.2 rney be dirscted to eilow the petitioner l-o participate in the counseliry for the first semester- of B.E. for the year' +, 2003. 3. Notice of the petltion was Issued. As far as the Respondent No.3 is concerned. an affidwit has been filed by the pstitloner that the Rsspondent No.3 has refused to accept the notice. Return has been fiied on behalf of the respondents' No. 1 and 2 In which it has been mentioned thest a bore perusal of the Annexure P/5 emelope reveols that on the said envelops it has been endorsed 'refused to occept'. It nowhere bears the seal cnd signature of the person who has reade the endorsenient and the petitioner' is not aa'are of the fact whether the Respondent No.3 actually sent his form to the Respondent No.2 or not, and has expr-essed his apprehension in paro 5.7 about not sending of the for-m by the Respondent No.3 to the Respondent No.2. 4. Tne answsring Respo.ident No.2 hcsd not r-efused to accept the applieotion form of the petitioner". Al! forms which v.'ere sent by the cour'ier service wsre accepted and processed by the Respondent No.2 and there was no question of refusal on the part of Respondent No.2. The petitioner himself is responsibie and iiable for the aforesaid iapse, and not answer-ing respondent No.2. It is nowhere mentioned on the emelope that the Respondent No.3 cfter accepting ths envelope from the petitioner ever sent it from Akaltara to Raipur' and the same enveiope was tendered to the Dir'ector'ate Respondent No.2. Thus it N ^ reveals that the enveiope was not sent to the Respondent No.2. It aiso does not besr the seal or signature while writing 'refused to accept'. Tne Respondent No.3 could have sent the enveiope to the petitioner aftsr' wel within time. The iast date was 7.7.2003 Exit it appea"s that before 7.7,2003 the respondent No.3 did not return even the emelope to the petitioner. Slnce the form was not received by the Respondent No.2 therefore there is no question of iilegol action on the part of the Respondent No.2. The allegction made in para 5.4 of the petition is denied. The allegation of para 5.8 of the denied. The petitioner is not entitled for any relief as the counseling in the ©ovt.College has aiready been compteted. I have heard Shri Pcefog Kotecha, learned counsei for the petitioner and Shri anjay K. Agarwal, tearned beputy Advocote ©eneralfor the Respondents Mo. 6. Hoiwever, Respondent Nk>,3 preferred not to moke his representation in this petition and refused to aceept the notiee of the petitlon. An affidavit tc thls effect has been filed by the petitioner. 7. Having heard leorned counsel for the parties. and hwing perused the petltion and the return filed by Ihe Respndents No. 1 and 2 it is clea' that even the )etit[o"er is not sure as to whether the form of the patitioner" t&'as ever tendered at the receipt counter of the Respondent No.2 or not. It hias spectficai'y been mentioned in the return that there was a seporate counter for r-eceipt of the opplleation forms which were sent throigh cour'ier and the petitioner has not been able to produce ony material by which it can be ascer'tainsd that the form was tendered by the courier service to the iespondent No.2 for acceptance. Even Annexure P/5 on which it has been /< 5 written that 'r'efused to accept', does not beer the gignature of the person who tendered the form and even the date is not mentionsd on which it was tendered to the Rsspondent No.2. There is no affidavit of the person who tendered the for-m at the counter of the Respondent No.2. A perusa! of the writ petition reveals that there-was c.'eor' cut negligence on the port of the Respondsnt No.3, who has preferred not to represent in the )s+ition in spite of the fact that the notice wos issued to him. As per the werments in the petition the form was handed over to the Respondent No.; on 23.6.2003 at Akaitara. Akaltara and Raipur are connected by rail. It woyid not have taken two days time to reach the destination l.e. Raipur and even up to the day the petltioner enquired from the Respondent No.3 i.e. 28.7.2003 the Respondent .3 had not even took troubie to return the form of the petitioner/applicant, so that he couid have rsade alternative ar'rangement for delivery of the form at the counte" of the Respondent No.2, as there was sufficient time avci!ab!s with the petitioner to submit his form til! 7.7.2003 at the counter of the Respondent No.2. 'Thwefofe from the pteadings of the parties it stands established that the form u'as not tendered ist the counter of the Respondent No.2 and for this riegligence only the Respondent No.3 is responsibie and for that the petitioner* cannot blame the Respondent No.2 for non-inciusion of the name of the petitioner in the counseling llst as the fault lies on the Respondent No.3. Jhe Respndent No.3 accepted the form as o cuprier ser'vice, it was the duty of the Respondent No.3 to send it to Reiipur at the earllest and he should hava obtained the eer'tificate from his Raipu" office that the Respondent No.2 has refussd to accept, and he should have•/ glven the name of the person who tendered the envelops with t!,Ti®and dats in order to enabie the petitioner to take appropr'iate action in the matter*. 9. In the resu!t there is no me"it in the oetition ond the same is liabie to be dismissed. TTie petitioner- is at iiberty to take action against the Respsndent No.3 for his nsgiigence whateve" remedy is (wailcbie to him under the law. 10. Befor-e parting with the orde" I would !ike to observe that for no fault of the petitioner, just on account of the Iqase of the Respondent No.3 the ccresr of the petitioner is at stake. He had chosen the courier service being a responsibSe and speedy mode of sending ths form to the Respondent No.2 but III t. ^.in^..* ^.i-.^ r^. to i.'l-fate of the petitioner that the Respondent Mo.3 has faiied to discharge ms duties. Even though the petitioner hess no right to ask the "espondsnt No.2 fo" counseiing but bokirg to the facts and circumstances of the cass and no fault on the part of the petitloner. I wouid 'ike to observe further that after compSetfon of counseiing if any seat is ieft vacant and unfilled then it wl!l be generosity on the part of the Respondent No.2 to aliou' the pstitioner to appear in the counsellng as a special case without' making this as e precedent and if he is found ellgible aid sueeeeds in the counseiing then to give him admission on humanita"iun ground so thst his career is not spoiled. More porticuiariy when the petltioner belongs to the Seheduiea Caste Category, it is worth appreciation that he has obtained 68% rnar'ks. The petitioner Is dlrected to approach the Respondent .2 for this purpose within a period of seven days from todcy. ^l. With the above observation this petltion 'is disposed of finaliy. ~Sd7-- L.C.