Dismissed

Somvir Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC28 Feb 2014CWP/12976/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition seeking quashing of a topping result dated 09.02.2011 where the petitioner was declared absent, the Supreme Court held that delay in delivery of the interview letter by the Sohana Post Office does not justify condoning late arrival. The petitioner failed to reach the interview venue by 5 PM after telephonic notice.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; prayer for quashing result dated 09.02.2011 rejected.

Somvir Singh Vs Union of India and… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

CWP No. 12976 of 2011 (O&M) -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CWP No. 12976 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 28.02.2014

Somvir Singh

.. .. Petitioner

versus

Union of India & others ..Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

¶9

Present: Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Ajay Kaushik, Advocate for U.O.I for respondent No. 1

¶11

Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

¶12

Mr.O.P. Goyal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Tarun Singhal, Advocate for respondent No. 5.

¶13

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶14

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶15

¶16

RITU BAHRI , J.

¶17

The petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant

¶18

writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking

¶19

a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the result dated

¶20

09.02.2011 wherein the petitioner has been shown absent and

¶21

respondent No. 5 has been shown first.

¶22

Arora Gaurav 2014.03.05 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

CWP No. 12976 of 2011 (O&M) -2-

¶24

Pursuant to the advertisement dated 05.07.2010 for allotment of a petrol pump listed at Sr. No. 211 for village Silani at Palwal Sohna Road, Gurgaon, Haryana, which was published in Dainik Bhasker Newspaper, the petitioner applied in the prescribed form and completed all the formalities and deposited the form on 05.08.2010.

¶25

The site of the petitioner was inspected by the officials of respondent No. 3 and the petitioner was called for interview vide letter dated 27.10.2010 (P-1) and the date fixed fixed for the interview was 15.11.2010. The petitioner went to the prescribed place for the interview on 15.11.2010 along with original proof of age and minimum education qualification. However, the interview was cancelled on 15.11.2010 and no new date was disclosed to the petitioner. The petitioner was told that the interview letter will be sent again to the candidates, who will be facing the selection committee again. Thereafter, the interview letter was sent to the petitioner for an interview fixed on 09.02.2011 but the interview letter was not received by the petitioner prior to 09.02.2011 but was received on 12.02.2011 at p.m. (P-3). The petitioner came came to know of the interview on 09.02.2011 when a telephone call was received by the petitioner at 3.54 P.M that interviews are going on for the allotment of the petrol pump

¶26

and it was asked that if petitioner does not appear by 5 P.M at Panipat,

¶27

Arora Gaurav 2014.03.05 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

CWP No. 12976 of 2011 (O&M) -3-

¶29

the case of the petitioner will not considered. The petitioner informed that interview letter had not been received and it was received on 12.02.2011 at 4 P.M. The petitioner made strenuous efforts to find out as whey the letter informing him that the interview was to take place on 09.02.2011 was not received by him in time. The petitioner made detailed representation on 12.03.2011 to the Marketing Manager of respondent No. 3 and the entire facts were given in the representation (P-5). The petitioner received a letter on 01.04.2011 from respondent No. 4 to the effect that the letter for interview was despatched on 24.01.2011 and the same has been delivered at your address on 29.01.2011. The report of Dakpal Panipat was also sent to the petitioner along with letter. (P-6 colly). The petitioner immediately moved an application dated 26.04.2011 to Supdt. Postal Service Gurgaon Divn under R.T.I. The petitioner was informed that The department vide letter dated 06.05.2011 disposed of the speed post article No. EH212391675 IN dated 24.1.2011 booked from Panipat to the petitioner

¶30

and it was informed that the speed post was sent to Sohana Post office on 29.01.2011 but delivered to the petitioner on 12.02.2011. The matter was inquired through IPO (PG) Gurgaon (P-7 and P-8). Thereafter, the petitioner moved a representation dated 06.05.2011 to Area Marketing Manager of respondent No. 3 and the report of the postal authorities

¶31

Arora Gaurav 2014.03.05 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

CWP No. 12976 of 2011 (O&M) -4-

¶33

Gurgaon was also sent along with letter (P-9). The petitioner came to know that respondent No. 5 has been declared successful on 09.02.2011 itself as another candidate Pranay Aggarwal was not qualified and the petitioner was shown absent (P-10).

¶34

The precise grievance of the petitioner is that he was fully eligible and if he had participated in the interview, he would have been at No. 1 as he had secured maximum marks than respondent No. 5.

¶35

On notice, a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 stating therein that interview letter was dispatched through speed post dated 24.01.2011 to the petitioner at his address. Confirmation has been given by the Dakpal, Panipat that the said letter was delivered to the addressee on 29.01.2011 as is clear from the report of Dakpal (P-6). The petitioner did not appear in the interview at 11 hrs and did not report even by afternoon and as such a telephonic call was given to him to reach at the venue of interview by 5 P.M. He did not reach and was declared absent. Speed letter post was dispatched on 24.01.2011 i.e 15 days from the date of interview i.e 09.02.2011. The letter was delivered on 29.01.2011 to the petitioner. There was no mistake on the part of the postal authorities at Panipat.

¶36

Reply of respondent No. 5 is also to the same effect.

¶37

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶38

Arora Gaurav 2014.03.05 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶39

CWP No. 12976 of 2011 (O&M) -5-

¶40

The undisputed facts are that the letter of interview was dispatched by the postal authorities at Panipat by speed post on 24.01.2011 and reached to the Sohana Post office on 29.01.2011 which was delivered to the petitioner on the same date. At this point, reference can be made to Annexure P-7 i.e the information given by the postal services, Gurgaon to the petitioner that the speed post dated 24.01.2011 was sent to Sohana Post Office on 29.01.2011 and it was actually delivered to the addressee on 12.02.2011, therefore, the delay if any of delivering the speed post letter was with Sohana Post Office . The Postal Authorities at Panipat had sent the speed post 15 days in advance to the date of interview.

¶41

The question for consideration before this Court is whether for the fault of Sohana Post Office, the petitioner prayer for setting aside the result dated 09.02.2011, can be considered afresh on account of late delivery of the letter to the petitioner.

¶42

The interview letter was dispatched on 24.01.2011 by the respondents and they have received a confirmation from the Dakpal, Panipat that the letter has been delivered to the petitioner. However, as per information gathered by the petitioner (P-7), the letter had reached at Sohana Post office on 29.01.2011, the delay of 13 days therefore cannot be a ground to drag the respondents to take afresh interview.

¶43

Arora Gaurav 2014.03.05 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶44

CWP No. 12976 of 2011 (O&M) -6-

¶45

A telephone call was received by the petitioner at 3.54 P.M from the department that interviews are going on for the allotment of the petrol pump and it was asked that if petitioner does not appear by 5 P.M at Panipat, the case of the petitioner will not considered. It is

¶46

true that the petitioner could not travel in such a short time to the place of interview. Thus, the petitioner was treated as absent and respondent No. 5 was selected. It is an unfortunate situation that the petitioner without any fault, could not appear in the interview. The department has made every effort to inform the petitioner but it was the bad luck of the petitioner.

¶47

In view of the above, there is no merit in the present writ

¶48

petition.

¶49

The petition is dismissed.

¶50

( RITU BAHRI) JUDGE

¶51

28.02.2014

¶52

G Arora

¶53

Arora Gaurav 2014.03.05 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Somvir Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Somvir Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamlesh Mehra Vs Punjab State Electricity Board Andors

Baldev Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sajjan Singh & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

M/S L.R Alloys (P) Ltd. Vs State of Punjab

Sant Ram Bhardwaj Vs Indian Olympic Association and Ors.

Suman Vs State of Haryana