Amrita Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Amrita Singh vs State of U.P. and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Mar 14, 2011

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/917653

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/917653
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Krishna Murari, J.
Decided On: Mar 14, 2011
Case Number: WRIT - A No. - 13631 of 2011
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

[Pradeep Kumar] Indian Penal Code Section 147 - Punishment for rioting -- The petitioner who is an accused for offence under Sections 147,148,149,324,307 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act prays for anticipatory bail expressing apprehending of his arrest in connection with Kotwali P....

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Amrita Singh

Advocate R.P. Yada, Adv

Respondent

State of U.P. and Others

Advocate C.S.C., Adv

Excerpt

[pradeep kumar] indian penal code section 147 - punishment for rioting -- the petitioner who is an accused for offence under sections 147,148,149,324,307 and 120-b of the indian penal code and section 27 of the arms act prays for anticipatory bail expressing apprehending of his arrest in connection with kotwali p.s. case no. 14 of 2011 corresponding to g.r. no. 85 of 2011. learned counsel for the state opposed the prayer. in that view of the matter, the petitioner, above named, is directed to be surrender before the court below within two weeks from today, and in the event of his surrender, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned chief judicial magistrate, ranchi in connection with kotwali p.s. case no. 14 of 2011 g.r. no. 85 of 2011 subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the cr. p.c.and further conditions that one of the bailors will be the local resident having property within the jurisdiction of the court as well as petitioner is directed to appear once in every month on the date fixed in this case, otherwise his bail bond shall stands cancelled......accordingly, the advertisement prescribed only one mode of submitting application form by registered post.4. it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the application form was sent along with necessary documents through registered post on 4.2.2011, postal receipt in support of application has been filed as annexure '2' to the writ petition. the application form sent by the petitioner through registered post was returned as undelivered, as the same was not accepted by respondent no. 2 on the ground that it was time barred. it is further contended that the post office was an agent of the respondent and thus, she cannot be penalized for the delay in delivery of the application form. in support of the contention he has placed reliance upon the decision of this court in shashi bhushan kumar v. u. p. higher education service commission and others, 2000 (4) awc - 2947 and vinod kumar v. state of u. p., 2004 (3) esc 1395, wherein it has been held that if one mode of submission of application form is prescribed by the respondent, then the postoffice shall become the agent of the respondents.5. admittedly, in the present case, only one mode was prescribed i.e. by registered post and the petitioner sent her application form well within time.6. in view of the aforesaid legal position settled by the pronouncement of this court, present writ petition is liable to succeed and is accordingly allowed. the regional joint director (education), allahabad region, allahabad is directed to accept the application form of the petitioner and to consider her candidature for selection.

Full Judgment

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of finally without calling of the counter affidavit.

3. Prayer made in this petition is a mandamus directing respondent no. 2 to accept the application form submitted by the petitioner and to consider her candidature for selection on the post of Trained Graduate Teacher in Government Girls Inter College. An advertisement dated 29.12.2010 was issued inviting application for selection on the post of Trained Graduate Teacher in the institution for different subjects. There was stipulation in the advertisement that only those applications would be considered, which are received by 2.2.2011 and subsequently on corrigendum issued by respondent no. 2, the last date was extended to 10.02.2011. Accordingly, the advertisement prescribed only one mode of submitting application form by registered post.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the application form was sent along with necessary documents through registered post on 4.2.2011, postal receipt in support of application has been filed as Annexure '2' to the writ petition. The application form sent by the petitioner through registered post was returned as undelivered, as the same was not accepted by respondent no. 2 on the ground that it was time barred. It is further contended that the post office was an agent of the respondent and thus, she cannot be penalized for the delay in delivery of the application form. In support of the contention he has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Shashi Bhushan Kumar v. U. P. Higher Education Service Commission and others, 2000 (4) AWC - 2947 and Vinod Kumar v. State of U. P., 2004 (3) ESC 1395, wherein it has been held that if one mode of submission of application form is prescribed by the respondent, then the postoffice shall become the agent of the respondents.

5. Admittedly, in the present case, only one mode was prescribed i.e. by registered post and the petitioner sent her application form well within time.

6. In view of the aforesaid legal position settled by the pronouncement of this Court, present writ petition is liable to succeed and is accordingly allowed. The Regional Joint Director (Education), Allahabad Region, Allahabad is directed to accept the application form of the petitioner and to consider her candidature for selection.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2011 Same Parties Amrita Singh vs State of U.P. and Others Same Subject Education Same Judge Krishna Murari, J.

Education