IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1509 of 2011 Vikrant Kamboj …Petitioner Versus Union of India and others …Respondents And Present: Mr. A. D. Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H. S. Rawal with Mr. Vikas Pande, Advocates for respondent nos. 1 and 4. Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. B. D. Kandpal, Advocate for respondent no.3. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. A. D. Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. H.S.Rawal with Mr. Vikas Pande, Advocates for respondent nos. 1 and 4, Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. B. D. Kandpal, Advocate for respondent no.3. 2. The petitioner was a candidate in an examination known as “Combined Junior Engineer Examination”. Since examination was to be conducted by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (from hereinafter referred to as “Commission”), the Commission had issued an advertisement on 25.8.2011 in a newspaper, which has wide circulation, asking for application from eligible candidates for the said post. The last date of receiving of such application form was 27.9.2011 in the office of Commission at Singhdwar Kankhal, District Haridwar. What is more important was that the Commission had held in the advertisement that the candidate is at liberty to send his application by whichever method he chose but it should reach on or before at 6.00 pm on 27.9.2011. This precaution Commission had taken in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 16.3.2011 passed in Special Appeal No.24 of 2011, wherein on similar 2 circumstances candidature of two candidates were rejected as their application forms were beyond time and mistake though in that case was purely on the part of postal department. The Division Bench had held that for abundant precaution in future the Commission should indicate the mode of service. 3. Counsel representing the Commission Mr. B. D. Kandpal relied upon the said judgment of the Division Bench and has stated that in compliance of the said order for abundant precaution all candidates were at liberty to send their application forms by any mode and therefore the Commission has only followed the condition of the advertisement as well as of the law in its letter and spirit. Moreover, he further stated that in terms of advertisement the form of the petitioner was not liable to be accepted, as it was received after the last date for such acceptance. 4. The petitioner, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner has sent his form on 21.9.2011 from Head Office Pithoragarh. It is also submitted by the petitioner that his form reached the post office at Haridwar on 27.9.2011. This information the petitioner got from internet. In spite of the fact that petitioner had submitted his form well within time and his form had reached Head Post Office at Haridwar on 27.9.2011, and the objections of the respondents for not receiving the form is that the application form had reached the actual office of the Commission after 7.00 pm on 27.9.2011 is only a technicality and his form was liable to be accepted. 5. This contention of the petitioner is not correct. The petitioner must comply with the condition of the advertisement and the form therefore must be received in 3 the office of the Commission on or before 27.9.2011. In fact the petitioner had full liberty to submit his form by any mode, he chose the postal department, and therefore the petitioner cannot fix the liability on the Commission, if this delay is on part of the Postal Department. The petitioner further contends that he belongs to a remote area of the Uttarakhand i.e. Didihat which is a remote hill area in District Pithoragarh. This form was not available at Didihat post office and so that he had to come to Pithoragarh in order to get form and therefore precious time was lost and Court may consider the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the hardship that the petitioner had to face, as he was staying in remote area. However, this fact the petitioner has pleaded in the writ petition. Moreover, the Commission states that these forms were also available at “Didithat” although this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner may have faced hardship considering the difficulty of remote area where he was residing at that time when he filled his form, yet since, no finding to this effect can be made by this Court on the material before it and consequently no benefit can be given to the petitioner. Moreover, Commission is relying upon a Division Bench decision of this Court, which categorically holds that form must be submitted in time, notified by the Commission. 6. The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 7. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 23.11.2011 Kuldeep