l- aivtstc~: (?»"«h c^i •&02 !N THE^HIGILCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT APPEAL N0. /2008 WRIT PETITION N0. 4231 OF 2006, decided on 20.3.2008) APPELLANT PETITIONER <IP'" . <^^ \^w^ ^p^ < ^^ •<^^ A.-' RESPONDENTS ^J ^ 1. ^^^^ <^0 y /Omprakash Pandey (Roll No. 1615118653), aged about 23 years, son of Shri Narendra Kumar Pandey, resident of - Quarter No. 370 Chakradhar Nagar, Bangla Para, Raigarh, (Chhattisgarh) through - Father Narendra Kumar Pandey, aged about 53 years, son of Kamla Prasad Pandey. VERSUS Union oflndia, through - Ministry ofRailway, New Dehli. The Divisional Railway Manager, S.E.C.R. Bilaspur (C.G.) '} Assistant Personnel Manager (Recruitment), S.E.C.R., Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) WRIT APPEAL UNDERSECTION 2 OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DjyiSION BENCH) ACT. 2006 @"^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Division Benth: Hon'bte Shri Justice I.M. Qudklusi Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra. Writ Aroeal No. 95 /20Q8 Apoellant Petitioner Respondents Versus Omprakash Pandey Unton of India and others. Shri A.N. Bhalda, counsel for the appellant. Miss Naushina Afi, Advocate on behalf of Shri Amit Choudhari, Standing counsel for RaUway. Writ Appeal under Sectfon 2 of the Chhattisaarh High Court (Appeal to Dh/ision Benchi Act. 2006 ORAL ORDER (2S.03.2&10) Challenge in this writ appea! is to be order passed by the leamed sir^te Judge dismissing the petitioner's writ petition for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to arrange the re-examination of the petitioner for recruitment in Group 'D' ser/ices advertised by the respondents (S.E.C.R.) and to award compensation. (2) The brief factsoftte case arethatthe respondents / S.E.C.R. invited appltoations for Ming of Group 'D' posts in its establtehment. Accorcling to the petitioner, being duly qualified, had applied for the post but dkl not receive the call letter and thus he coute! not appear in the examination. (3) Leamed counsel for the appellant submits that ft was because of the lapses committed by the respoiKlents-authorities that he .-? -<^ e-^ ..--.iSig,^ ^ ,!? i -^:i' ^' '^^.-.y' —a.- coukl not appear in the examinatkin therefore it ss a fit case where re-examination should be ordered. (4) On the otherhand, leamed counsel appearii^ for the respondents submits that the call letter was dujy despatched and nevrepaper publteatton were ateo made on 14-04-2006 vfcle Annexure R/2 intorming the cand'Klates that if they have n<rt received the call letters ttrey could oMain the duplicate catl tetter from the office before a particular date. Moreover in the website of the department also it was published and as such wride publicity was given. (5) From the material available on record, this Court is satisfied that huge number of applteants, approximately 6,35,(XX) were issued call tetters and in that sequence some of them might not have received call letter arel only because of this, newspaper publication was made. It is ateo to be seen that it is the duty of the appellant ateo to remain vigilant and to have enquired about the date of examination arKl non-receipt of call letter. The appellant cannot put the blame entirely on the respondents when such a mammcrth exercise was undertaken by them. Responderts have produced the oryinal despateh register to demonstrate that the cal! tetter was issued to the appellant in time. (6) The leamed s\ng\e Judge has dealt with the matter in detail and after refemng to law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in relation to Sectton 27 of General Clauses Act and presumption arisir^ there from, has heki that in the facts and cireumstances of ^ s- fi) the present case postal detay cannot confer any benefrt or entitlement to the petitioner. (7) We are of the conskiered opinion that there is no error in the order passed by the ieamed single juc^e. Moreover the written examination for the subject recruitment has taken ptace in the month of K4ay, 2006 i.e. almost about 4 years lack. Tte relief etaSmed in the writ petition cannot be allowed at this stage. For claiming compensation writ petition is not the appropriate remedy. (8) The instant writ appeal fatte and is hereby dismissed. Sd)- l.M.Quddusi judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge •I- ^