BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR.CHHATTISGARH S^NfiLE BENCH ^ WRFT PETITION (S) N0. OF 2011 PETETEONER ^ v/ ,. /y / \T^^/' ^'ff>' x^u- .^•"^•y ^^ z ^^>-"" ^"' RESPONbENTS Raghvendra Singh Parmar, S/o Ramswaroop Singh Aged about-31 years, R/o- Raghvendra Singh Parmar, CfO S.K. Ahuja, 115,Raghvendra Nagar, A.B.Road,Shivpuri Distt- Shivpur(M.P.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through -Dep. of Law and Legislative Affairs, b.K.S.Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh (Administrative side), through Registrar General, High Court Campus, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. L)epartment of Indian Post, Through - Post Master General Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITtON UNDEk ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTETUTION OF INNA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRTT IN NATURE OF CERTCORARI. MANbAMUS. PROHIBITEON AN& OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRTTS. DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS. OR&ER OR OROERS s^ HIGiH COURT OF CMHATTISOARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pntiidlcer Diwaker) Wril Pe&itioil fS^ No. 5335 of 2Q11 PETITIONER Raghvendra Singh Parmar VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhsttlsgarh and others Shri Shyam Sunderlal Tekchandani, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Y. S. Thakur, Dy. A.G. for the State/respondent No.l. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, counset for respondent No.2. WRFT PETITION UNDERARTXCl.E 220/227 OFTHE CONSTITUTZON OF ZNDZA QR_.Q_i_8 (09.09.2011) Ghevance of the petitioner ts that though he has cteared his preliminary examlnation for the post of Civil Judge and is entitled to appear in the main examination to be held on 11.09.2011, his candidafcure has wrongly been rejected vide annexure P-1 on the ground that the form submitted by hlm was not received by respondent No.2 within time l.e. on or before 26.08.2011. 2. Contention of the iearned counsel for the petitioner is that as the petltioner had misplaced his photographs, he coutd dispatch his form for the maln examination on(y on 22.08.11 from Gwalior (M.P) by speed post and he was under the impression that his form would reach respondent No.2 before 26.08.2011. It has been submitted by the petitioner that one candidate atso sent his form on 23.08.2011 from Gwalior by registered post and the said form reached respondent No.2 in time and therefore the petitioner cannot <:r be held liable for sencijng hjs form with any delay and for ttie lapse of respondent No.3 i.e. Indian Post the petitioner should not be made to suffer. 3. Replylng to the arguments of the petitloner it has been argued by Shn Agrawai, learned counsel appearing for respondent No,2 that all those candtdates who had succeeded tn the preSiminary examination were informed by this respondent to submit their forms for the main examination on or before 26.08.2011 titl 5 p.m. along with essential testimonials and prescribed fee. He submtts that as per ciause-6 of Civil Judge (Entr/ Level) Mains Examinations, the forms were supposed to reach respondent No.2 on or before 26.08.2011 but the form of the petitioner was received by respondent No.2 on 27.08.2011 and therefore under no circumstances the petitioner can be permitted to appear In the main examination. He further submits that the form sent by Shri Bhism Kumar Gupta of whom reference has been given by the petitioner in this petition was recelved by respondent No.2 well wlthjn time and therefore after accepting the said form his candidature has been accepted. 4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Clause-6 of Civil Judge (Entry Level) Mains Examinatlons reads as under: "Dulfy fiflecf in application form must reach the Registrar General, High Couft of Chhattisgsrhf Bilaspur on or before 26.08.2011 tHf 5.00 p.m. The High Court shaii not be responsib!@ for sny delay or non-receipt of the appfication form. ^ Undisputedty the form sent by the petitioner was not reeeived by respondent No.2 on or before 26.08.2011 and therefore the respondent No.2 cannot be held liable for any fault. It is unfortunate that the form of the petitioner could not reach respondent No.2 on or before 26.08.2011 but the petltioner has to blame himself for this. He should have been more vigijant while sending the form because it was within his knowledge that the last dafce for submjssion of from was 26.08.2011. So far as the mode of sending the form chosen by the petitjoner j.e. Speed Post is concerned it was for him to decide and choose the mode. If the petttioner has any grievance with the Postal Department he is at IIberty to take appropriate steps against the said department in accordance with law. So far as the present case is concerned the candjdature of the petitioner has rightly been rejected by respondent No.2. It is reSevant to note that the petittoner is not the only candidate whose candidature has been rejected by respondent No.2 for not receiving duly filiej3 form within time but the carididature of three other candidates has also been rejected by respondent No.2 on the same ground. 6. Thus^ I find no merit in the case of the petitioner and being so the petition is iiable to be dismissed and it is dismissed as such. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge