Dismissed

Raunak Khatoon v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC5 Sept 2012CWJC/14426/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought consideration for an Assistant Teacher post despite application arrival after the last date due to postal delay. The Court held Article 14 required adherence to the last date to ensure equal opportunity and a conclusive selection process, dismissing the writ.

What did the court decide?

Writ application dismissed; petitioner directed to pursue other remedies.

Raunak Khatoon Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14426 of 2012

¶2

====================================================== 1. Raunak Khatoon D/O - Md. Athar Hussain, Wife Of Md. Manzer Alam Resident Of Village - Baguipur, P.O. - Baguipur, P.S. - Laheriasarai, District - Darbhanga

¶3

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through Commissioner-Cum-Secretary Education Department, Bihar, Patna 2. Director, Research And Training Bihar, Patna, Through Its Director, Education Department New Secretariat, Patna 3. Director , Primary Teacher Education Department New Secretariat 4. Deputy Director Primary Education, Bihar, Patna

¶4

Chairman Bihar Staff Selection Commission Post Vetnary College, Patna

¶5

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Shahnawaz Ali For the Respondent/s : Mr. Subhash Pd. Singh Ga7 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER

¶6

2 05-09-2012 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State.

¶7

The petitioner was an applicant for the post of Assistant Teacher in the Subject of Urdu. Her name has not been included within the list of 34540 persons approved by the Supreme Court and prohibiting any Court of law from entertaining objections with regard to the same.

¶8

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that her application for the post was sent by registered post, the mode prescribed by the respondents, on 12.7.2010. The delay in delivery by the postal department on 26.7.2010 after the last date fixed for receipt on 19.7.2010 cannot be a ground to deny her consideration.

¶9

Referring to 2010(2) PLJR 1008 (Manas Kumar Sinha v. Bihar Public Service Commission,) (DB) it is submitted that it is distinguishable on its own facts. Manas Kumar Sinha (supra) had raised his grievance after the examinations had been held. It was observed that it was not possible to

¶10

Patna High Court CWJC No.14426 of 2012 (2) dt.05-09-2012

¶11

¶12

entertain his grievance and give direction for holding a special examination. In the present case the process of selection has still not been completed and the Supreme Court on 4.5.2012 in SLP (Civil) No. 11507 of 2012 has observed that individual claims may be considered on representation de hors 34540 seats already notified. The petitioner has filed a representation on 20.5.2012 but which is not being considered by the respondents.

¶13

Learned Counsel for the Commission also relies on Manas Kumar Sinha (supra) also. He submits that the ratio emanating from the judgment is that the Commission is not answerable for postal delay. The petitioner should have taken precaution by an early dispatch rather than a week earlier only. The application received after the last date cannot be considered. Any consideration of her application shall be contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India vis a vis others whose application may have similarly been received after the last date fixed in the advertisement. The order of the Supreme Court dated 4.5.2012 has no application in the facts of the case and no directions have been given to consider the applications received after the last date fixed.

¶14

Normally, the ratio of a case has to be culled out as decided on the facts of a case. But where the ratio is laid down on a provision of law, after considering statutory provisions it would apply to all similarly circumstanced. In Manas Kumar Sinha (supra), the question of law considered was if delay in delivery of the application sent by registered after the last date fixed, was attributable to the postal department as agent could the candidate be denied consideration. It was held at paragraph 10 that the Commission was not answerable for the lapses of the Postal Department invoking Section 6 of the Post Office Act. It was observed that the position of the Post Office would be different if delay was caused fraudulently or by willful act or deceit.

¶15

The fixation of last date for receipt of applications in the

¶16

Patna High Court CWJC No.14426 of 2012 (2) dt.05-09-2012

¶17

¶18

advertisement, more so for appointment on public posts, has a salutary purpose. If no last date is fixed for receipt of applications, the selection process may itself become inconclusive. Moreover in a public selection, especially when it relates to government posts, given the lack of employment opportunities and desire for a government service for a myriad of reasons there is bound to be a surfeit of applications. Such applications are required to be scrutinized and the ineligible segregated. The selection process can commence only thereafter. These procedural matters also are time consuming.

¶19

To hold that merely because the selection process had not been concluded, the late receipt of the petitioners application could not debar consideration, shall be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. There can be no distinction between an application never received before the last date or received after the last date. Both fall in the same category of ineligible applicants. If the Court were to direct consideration of such claims, Article 14 of the Constitution shall stand violated vis a vis others similarly situated who rightly assumed that they had lost the right for consideration. If the last date was not mandatory, they could also have pursued their remedies. In that event the selection process would itself have become an unending process as observed earlier.

¶20

The phrase “representation” in the order of the Supreme Court dated 4.5.2012 shall not take within its ambit persons who had never submitted an application before the last date.

¶21

The writ application is dismissed.

¶22

(Navin Sinha, J)

¶23

Snkumar/-

Raunak Khatoon v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raunak Khatoon v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Shatrudhan Sah Vs The Magadh Univerrsity, Bodh Gaya and Ors.

Dr.Jagat Narayan Nayak Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Farzana Khatoon and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Md. Wali Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

The State of Bihar Vs Laxmi Narayan Singh and Ors.

Netaji Subhash Institute of Te Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.