Prayagraj, Oct 13 The Allahabad High Court has held that a candidate who applies online within the time and dispatches the hard copy of the application within the prescribed period by post cannot be excluded from the selection process merely because the postal article reached the recruiting authority after the cut-off date.
With the above observation, Justice Manju Rani Chauhan directed the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (UPPSC) to accept the hard copy of the petitioner woman till October 16 and accordingly consider her candidature for the recruitment of medical education department of Uttar Pradesh.
By post was a mode of transmission permitted by the advertisement.
"The recruiting authority, having itself prescribed and sanctioned transmission through registered post/ speed post, cannot in the same breath disown the consequences of that very mode of transmission and visit an otherwise diligent candidate with the drastic civil consequence of exclusion from the selection process," the court said.
According to the facts, applications were invited through an advertisement dated August 18 for posts under the Medical Education Department to be filled only by interview.
The online application and fee were due by September 1, and the hard copy of the form along with the requisite documents had to reach the Commission by 5 pm on September 15 by registered post, speed post or by hand.
The petitioner applied online and paid the fee on August 31, 2026, and sent the hard copy by registered post on September 8. It reached the Commission's office at Allahabad on September 16, a day after the cut-off date, and was refused with an endorsement to that effect made on the envelope, which was returned to the petitioner on September 21.
The postal authorities informed the petitioner that offices in Delhi/ New Delhi had been closed from September 11 to September 13 on account of the 18th BRICS Leaders' Summit. A representation to the Commission dated September 30 drew no response.
During the course of the hearing, the counsel for the Commission submitted that the hard copy received after the last date prescribed could not be accepted.
The court found that the tracking report established timely dispatch and subsequent transit established that the petitioner had discharged his obligation within time and nothing on record suggested any want of diligence on his part.
The court recognised that where timely dispatch and absence of negligence on the part of the candidate are established, a subsequent delay in postal delivery, being beyond the candidate's control, cannot by itself constitute a valid ground for exclusion from the selection process.
Accordingly, the court in its judgment dated October 8 held that the Commission had erred in returning the hard copy on account of the marginal delay in its postal delivery.
