C.W.P. No.20215 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.20215 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.01.2010 Rajesh S/o Sh. Wazir Chand ....Petitioner Versus Haryana Public Service Commission through its Secretary ....Respondent Present: Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.N. Mehtani, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No ` -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner seeks for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to hold an interview for the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical). The notification for appointment came through the Haryana Public Service Commission and the eligible candidates were called for interview after the initial screening through examinations. The results were published in newspapers and after shortlisting of the candidates, the announcement was that interview schedule would be intimated in due course. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was one of such shortlisted candidate and the contention of the petitioner was that he was waiting for a call for interview but he did not receive any. 2. The petitioner had, therefore, moved a representation on C.W.P. No.20215 of 2009 (O&M) -2- 08.12.2009 seeking for information about the interview, when he was informed that the interview process had been concluded even on 15.11.2009 and the final list was under preparation. The petitioner was informed by the respondent that the communications had been sent for interview through Under Postal Certificate (U.P.C.) to all the candidates, who had been shortlisted and while out of the 28 candidates, who had been shortlisted, 27 of them had turned up for interview, only the petitioner was complaining that he did not receive the communication. According to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, it is inconceivable that the petitioner alone could not have received the communication. The petitioner had been sent with the communication at the address given by him and it must be presumed that it was received by him. 3. When the petitioner is contending that he has not received the communication, it will be no answer for the respondent to state that it was sent to the correct address and it must be presumed that he had received it. The presumption that is available under the General Clauses Act extends only to registered notices and does not extend to letters dispatched by Certificate of Posting. Even with reference to the dispatch of letters through Registered Post, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Puwada Venkateswara Rao Vs. Chidamana Venkateswara (1976) 2 SCC 409 that the presumption is not irrebuttable and if the addressee complains that he did not receive a registered letter, C.W.P. No.20215 of 2009 (O&M) -3- the onus will shift on the person who claims that the letter was despatched and received by the addressee. In this case, the contention is no more than stating that 27 persons had received the letters and they had turned up for interview and one person alone cannot be heard to complain that he did not receive. A presumption cannot arise by how the other persons had received and turned up for interview. The situation cannot be different even if one person complains that he did not receive it. 4. I accept the contention made by the petitioner in the writ petition that he did not receive the communication, for in these days where public appointments are not aplenty and an aspirant cannot easily spurn off a call for interview unless the grievance is genuine. In this case, if the petitioner states that he did not receive the communication, such a statement would obtain credibility by only the assertion that he has made and how under normal circumstances, a person cannot deny to himself a benefit that he seeks before the Court. 5. The respondent will constitute an Interview Committee forthwith and inform the date of the interview through Registered Post with acknowledgement due and conclude the process before it announces the final results. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. There shall be, however, no direction as to costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 13, 2010 Pankaj*