IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2780 of 2010 AJIT KUMAR TIWARI SON OF SRI SACHIDANAND TIWARI, PRESENT ADDRESS SERVO STOCKIST (AUTOMOBILE), TULSI NAGAR, JAIL ROAD, TILKAMANJHI, BHAGALPUR, P.S. TILKAMANJHI, DISTT. BHAGALPUR PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VIJAY NAGAR, BANKA, DISTRICT BANKA Versus 1. THE"HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, REGISTERED OFFICE AT 17, JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD, MUMBAI. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. REGISTERED OFFICE AT17, JAMESHEDJI TATA ROD, MUMBAI. 3. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (L.P.G.) HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. KOLKATTA 4. THE SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER (L.P.G.) THE SENIOR MANAGER, HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. PATNA L.P.G. REGION, 6TH FLOOR, LOK NAYAK JAI PRAKASH BHAWAN, DAK BUNGLOW CHOWK, PATNA. 5. THE SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., LUCKNOW L.P.G. REGION, 1, NEHRU ENCLAVE GOMTI NAGAR, LUCKNOW. ----------- For the Petitioner :- M/S. N. K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate & Mr. Diwakar Upadhyaya For the Respondents :- Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Singh. ------ 2 17/02/2010 Based on an earlier direction of this Court contained in Annexure-7 the petitioner filed an application before the respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited to give him an opportunity to appear before the Selection Board for his appointment as a L.P.G. Distributor. The primary reason - 2 - on which such an indulgence was sought for after the interview was over was that he received the communication about the interview after the date of interview was over. He annexed the envelope with the postal endorsement that the registered letter was served upon him on 3.8.2009. The interview was to be held on 29.7.2009. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that for no fault of the petitioner he has been denied the valuable right for consideration. It is not in dispute that the registered letter was sent on the address furnished by the petitioner on 13.7.2009 i.e. well over two weeks before the scheduled date fixed for the interview. If the registered letter did not reach the petitioner before the scheduled date and there was failure on the part of the Postal department to deliver the registered letter in time, the Company cannot be asked to hold a separate interview for the petitioner when the entire exercise has already been carried out and selections made and notified. There is no failure on the part of the Company. Failure, if any, is on the part of the Postal department. If the petitioner feels that he has been deprived of a valuable right - 3 - and there was deficiency of service on the part of the postal department, he surely has remedy under the law but no case for direction to consider the application of the petitioner and for holding a fresh interview only for him is made out. This writ application is thus dismissed. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)