HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO. 33285 OF 2010 Between: V. Srinivasa Reddy, S/o V. Venkata Rami Reddy ………….Petitioner AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary, General Administration Department and 12 others ………….Respondents ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice N. Ravi Shankar) The point that arises for determination in this Writ Petition is whether the application of the Writ Petitioner for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor, which reached the office of the Inspector General of Police (for short “IGP”) beyond 10.12.2010 can be ordered to be received. The point arises in the following circumstances. By the order dated 8.12.2010 the Tribunal granted interim relief as under: “Interim relief: “ In the light of the above circumstances, the respondents are directed to receive the applications of the applicants and allow the applicants to participate in the selection process for recruitment to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor without insisting on the age requirement in pursuance of the Notification in Rc.No. 516/R&T/Rect.1/2010 dated 12.11.2010 issued by the 2nd respondent, subject to further orders in the O.A.”. The petitioner says that he dispatched his application for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor to IGP’s Office, Guntur pursuant to the above order. The said application according to the terms of the notification was to reach there by 5.00 p.m on 10.12.2010. The petitioner says that though he dispatched the application by speed post on the morning of 9.12.2010, the GP’s Office received it on 13.12.2010 and therefore, the said office rejected it and the petitioner received the cover back. The petitioner already filed M.A.No. 3748 of 2010 in O.A.No. 8709 of 2010 requesting the Tribunal for giving a direction to the IGP’s Office to receive his application. However, the Tribunal by its order dated 23.12.2010 rejected that application on the ground that since the application of the petitioner reached the office of the IGP beyond the stipulated date, the said office was right in rejecting it. Questioning that order, the present Writ Petition is filed. It may be noted that in any notification inviting applications for a post either in public employment or otherwise, the appointing authority or the selection authority will prescribe the last date for receipt of the applications and that has been fixed as 10.12.2010 in this case and the application of the petitioner for the post in question reached the office of the IGP after that date. Hence, the IGP’s office rightly rejected it. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued at length and his argument is even if the application is received belatedly that is not going to prejudice anybody, therefore the application be ordered to be received. There is no force in his contention. It may be noted that a cut off date for receipt of applications is prescribed in usual course while entertaining applications for the posts of public employment. If the said cut off date is relaxed they will open a floodgate and many more who have not sent the applications in time will again seek same relief and this is not permissible. His further plea is that though he dispatched the application within time and though it ought to have reached before 10.12.2010 or at least by 10.12.2010, the IGP’s Office received it on 13.12.2010 and this is not because of any fault on his part but because of some postal delay and therefore, he could not be denied the right to appear for the examination. May be the petitioner may not be responsible; the Condition No. 12 of the notification expressly says that the department shall not be answerable for any postal delay or loss of the application in present. Hence, going by the above circumstances even though the petitioner may not be at fault, this Court cannot go to his rescue now as his application reached to the concerned authority after the last date prescribed for receiving the applications. The learned counsel for the petitioner also could not bring to our notice any legal provision under which we can grant relief to him. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J DATE: 29.12.2010 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.