Case: State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors Vs. Pankaj Kumar

his contention that the Rules contemplated that the intimation has to be sent through post, but no such intimation was issued to the respondent. It is contended that the mere issue of SMS intimating the date of further process in the selection would not be sufficient. He contends that the mobile number would be furnished by the candidates at the time of making an application and in the instant case since about 3 years had elapsed from the date of the application, there could be no assumption that the candidate would possess the very same mobile connection and the number. In that light, it is contended that the appropriate course to ensure proper service would be through postal intimation, which had not been done in the instant case. It is in that background, the Learned Single Judge as also the Division Bench has arrived at the conclusion that an opportunity is required to be furnished as the employment opportunity should not be jeopardized. He therefore, seeks that this appeal be dismissed. 7. In the light of the rival contentions, having perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge as also the conclusion reached by the Division Bench of the High Court, it would indicate that the High Court has not granted the relief to the respondent by recording a finding with regard to the noncompliance of any requirement envisaged under the Rule or procedure provided in the advertisement calling for applications. The Rule as referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent mentions that the intimation is to be provided by postal communication or any other mode. In that view, there is no bar in intimating the candidates through SMS, more particularly when large number of candidates had to appear in the subsequent process and majority of the candidates have appeared for document verification and physical fitness test pursuant to intimation by SMS. Even, so far as the respondent is concerned, it is not his case that he had not received the SMS. It is only a technical contention that he ought to have been intimated through postal communication. When a requirement is stated in the application to provide the mobile number, it is with a purpose to communicate and in the instant case, the appellants have sent the SMS to the very number which had been furnished by the appellant. 8. Though, the learned counsel for the respondent vaguely contended that a person may not retain the same number after a long lapse of time, no material has been brought on record to indicate that the respondent did not possess the said mobile connection as on the date the SMS was sent. Further, the argument as put forth by the learned counsel for the respondent that one may not retain the same number after lapse of long time would hold good even for the address which is furnished for issue of postal communication. In a given case, the person may not reside in the same address which is furnished for communication as it existed when the application is made. In such circumstance, it is for the candidate to intimate any change to the authorities, since such change would be within the knowledge of the candidate and it is in his or her own interest such intimation is to be made. In the instant case, when there can be no dispute that the respondent was in possession of the same mobile connection, the detail of which was furnished in the application and the SMS had been sent to the respondent, the respondent having not acted on the same cannot at his own convenience make request to be permitted to participate in the selection process which has already concluded, not having utilized the opportunity which was available to him. 9. Further, from the very nature of consideration made by the High Court, it is seen that it was the casual attitude of the respondent which had brought about the situation though the High Court has mildly put it as, inadvertence and provided an opportunity. It is no doubt true, that as contended by the respondent in the objection statement, an opportunity was granted to about 151 candidates to take part in the selection process as indicated in the notice dated 14.01.2019 issued pursuant to directions issued by the High Court in the writ petitions which were filed. It is to be noticed that the respondent was not vigilant at the earliest point in time but it is only after such consideration had been made by the High Court and an opportunity was granted to certain other persons, the respondent had chosen to file the writ petition by merely contending that he had made a request to permit him to take part in the process on 15.01.2019 and he had not been permitted. 10. In that background, it is to be noted that another learned Single Judge of the High Court in a similar circumstance had dismissed Writ Petition No.3647 of 2019 filed by one Radha Sharma seeking similar relief and the said order was upheld by the Division Bench in Special Appeal Defective No.903 of 2019. The order of the learned Single Judge was dated 13.05.2019. In any event, though indulgence was shown in the earlier cases, a line has to be drawn at some stage as otherwise, the recruitment process undertaken by the competent authorities would be meaningless without a time line and the next recruitment process will also get effected since determination of the number of vacancies for the next process will keep fluctuating. The process herein had commenced in the year 2015 and the document verification along with the physical fitness test was held in 2018. Several candidates who were permitted pursuant to the order of the High Court had taken part in early January 2019. Since, sufficient time has elapsed thereafter it would not be appropriate to make an exception in the case of the respondent at this stage as otherwise the trickle would continue.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]7. In the light of the rival contentions, having perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge as also the conclusion reached by the Division Bench of the High Court, it would indicate that the High Court has not granted the relief to the respondent by recording a finding with regard to the noncompliance of any requirement envisaged under the Rule or procedure provided in the advertisement calling for applications. The Rule as referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent mentions that the intimation is to be provided by postal communication or any other mode. In that view, there is no bar in intimating the candidates through SMS, more particularly when large number of candidates had to appear in the subsequent process and majority of the candidates have appeared for document verification and physical fitness test pursuant to intimation by SMS. Even, so far as the respondent is concerned, it is not his case that he had not received the SMS. It is only a technical contention that he ought to have been intimated through postal communication. When a requirement is stated in the application to provide the mobile number, it is with a purpose to communicate and in the instant case, the appellants have sent the SMS to the very number which had been furnished by the appellant.8. Though, the learned counsel for the respondent vaguely contended that a person may not retain the same number after a long lapse of time, no material has been brought on record to indicate that the respondent did not possess the said mobile connection as on the date the SMS was sent. Further, the argument as put forth by the learned counsel for the respondent that one may not retain the same number after lapse of long time would hold good even for the address which is furnished for issue of postal communication. In a given case, the person may not reside in the same address which is furnished for communication as it existed when the application is made. In such circumstance, it is for the candidate to intimate any change to the authorities, since such change would be within the knowledge of the candidate and it is in his or her own interest such intimation is to be made. In the instant case, when there can be no dispute that the respondent was in possession of the same mobile connection, the detail of which was furnished in the application and the SMS had been sent to the respondent, the respondent having not acted on the same cannot at his own convenience make request to be permitted to participate in the selection process which has already concluded, not having utilized the opportunity which was available to him.9. Further, from the very nature of consideration made by the High Court, it is seen that it was the casual attitude of the respondent which had brought about the situation though the High Court has mildly put it as, inadvertence and provided an opportunity. It is no doubt true, that as contended by the respondent in the objection statement, an opportunity was granted to about 151 candidates to take part in the selection process as indicated in the notice dated 14.01.2019 issued pursuant to directions issued by the High Court in the writ petitions which were filed. It is to be noticed that the respondent was not vigilant at the earliest point in time but it is only after such consideration had been made by the High Court and an opportunity was granted to certain other persons, the respondent had chosen to file the writ petition by merely contending that he had made a request to permit him to take part in the process on 15.01.2019 and he had not been permitted.10. In that background, it is to be noted that another learned Single Judge of the High Court in a similar circumstance had dismissed Writ Petition No.3647 of 2019 filed by one Radha Sharma seeking similar relief and the said order was upheld by the Division Bench in Special Appeal Defective No.903 of 2019. The order of the learned Single Judge was dated 13.05.2019. In any event, though indulgence was shown in the earlier cases, a line has to be drawn at some stage as otherwise, the recruitment process undertaken by the competent authorities would be meaningless without a time line and the next recruitment process will also get effected since determination of the number of vacancies for the next process will keep fluctuating. The process herein had commenced in the year 2015 and the document verification along with the physical fitness test was held in 2018. Several candidates who were permitted pursuant to the order of the High Court had taken part in early January 2019. Since, sufficient time has elapsed thereafter it would not be appropriate to make an exception in the case of the respondent at this stage as otherwise the trickle would continue.