Harjeet Kaur and Another vs The Registrar General, High Court of Uttarakhand and Others

Barin Ghosh, C.J.—On 31st March, 2011, an advertisement was published, inviting applications from practising advocates for filling up 4 vacant posts of Additional District and Sessions Judges by direct recruitment in the Uttarakhand Higher Judicial Services. The advertisement required the applicants to submit certain certificates. According to the Petitioners, they collected those certificates on 15th April, 2011. Both the Petitioners are residents of Dehradun. According to the Petitioners, they immediately thereafter completed their applications and forwarded the same through speed post to the Registrar General of this Court. On 24th April, 2011, postal packets containing the applications returned to the Petitioners, since the Registrar General of this Court, on being tendered the envelops, containing those applications, on 19th April, 2011, refused to accept the same. In the writ petition, Petitioners are contending that the Postal Department is duty bound to effect service of a postal packet, sent under speed post, to the addressee, within 24 hours and, accordingly, postal packets should have been tendered to the Registrar General, High Court of Uttarakhand, Nainital, on or before 18th April, 2011 and there is no just reason on the part of the postal authority in not tendering the postal packets before the Registrar General, High Court of Uttarakhand, Nainital, on 18th April, 2011. The writ petition, however, is seeking a mandamus, directing the Registrar General of this Court to accept the said applications of the Petitioners.

The advertisement, referred to above, made it absolutely clear that the last date for submission of duly completed application forms before the Registrar General, High Court of Uttarakhand, Nainital, is 18th April, 2011 by 05:00 p.m. The advertisement further indicated that application, received after the last date, shall be rejected summarily.

The prayer, made in the writ petition that the applications of the Petitioners be accepted, is purported to be supported by the failure on the part of the postal authority in discharging its obligations towards the Petitioners. Registrar General of the High Court had nothing to do with such failure. The advertisement contained a public notification. In the event the prayer of the Petitioners is allowed, the same would tantamount to interference with the said public notification, which the Court can do only when the notification is contrary to any law for the time being in force.

It is true that the Court may, at times, extend time to do a thing, which is required to be done within a time specified, provided there is a special equity in favour of the person seeking such extension. In the instant case, the advertisement made it absolutely clear that the completed form must reach the Registrar General of this Court on or before 05:00 p.m. of 18th April, 2011. The advertisement did not indicate the mode of submission of the applications. There is no just reason, why, instead of taking the assistance of the postal authority, Petitioners themselves could not reach the applications in question to the Registrar General, High Court on or before 05:00 p.m. of 18th April, 2011.

That being the situation, the Court is incompetent to do what the Petitioners are seeking this Court to do. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. This order will not, however, prevent the Petitioners to take such recourse to law as they may be advised against the Postal Department.