Bhawna Garg Vs. State of Haryana and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1071150
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnMar-04-2013
AppellantBhawna Garg
RespondentState of Haryana and Others
Excerpt:
cwp no.4640 o”1. in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh cwp no.4640 of 2013 date of decision:04. 03.2013 bhawna garg ...petitioner versus state of haryana and others …respondents coram: hon'ble mr.justice hemant gupta hon’ble mr.justice ritu bahri present: mr.j.m.kalia, advocate for the petitioner. hemant gupta, j. the claim of the petitioner is that her application for h.c.s.(judicial branch) examination-2012 has been wrongly rejected as having been received after the cut-off date though it was sent through registered post on 11.1.2013. note (ii) clause 26 of the advertisement (annexure p-1) contemplates that the application must reach commission's office by close of office working on last date for receipt of application i.e.17.01.2013. clause 22 of the advertisement contemplates that no allegation that the application form has been lost or delayed in the post office or that the application form has been sent by late by the candidate's employer will not be considered. though cwp no.3752 of 2013 claiming similar relief has been dismissed but learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that cwp no.4640 o”2. the petitioner is entitled to be restituted to the same position as it existed prior to the date of sending of the application form through registered post in view of the maxim restitutio in integrum. learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgement of the supreme court in zonal manager, central bank of india versus m/s.devi ispat ltd.and others.2010 sc 64.particularly para 38, which reads as under:- “38. although ordinarily a superior court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction would not enforce the terms of a contract qua contract, it is trite that when an action of the state is arbitrary or discriminatory and, thus, violative of article 14 of the constitution of india, a writ petition would be maintainable.” we do not find any merit in the arguments raised. the condition in the advertisement was clear and specific that the application has to be received in the office of the commission on or before 17.01.2013. it was also stipulated that postal delays will not be a ground for entertaining the application though received after the cut-off date. the judgement relied upon by the petitioner relates to availing of credit facilities by the borrower. it is in the circumstances of the aforesaid case that the court observed that the writ petition would be maintainable. maintainability of the writ petition and the grant of relief are two different things. the cut-off date for receipt of applications in the office of the commission for entertaining the application has been specifically mentioned in the advertisement. no court can tinker with the cut-off date. any such tinkering with the cut-off date for receipt of application will give rise to an uncertain situation. cwp no.4640 o”3. in view of the aforesaid, we find no merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (hemant gupta) judge (ritu bahri) judge 04 03.2013 sk
Judgment:

CWP No.4640 o”

1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.4640 of 2013 Date of Decision:

04. 03.2013 Bhawna Garg ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr.J.M.Kalia, Advocate for the petitioner.

HEMANT GUPTA, J.

The claim of the petitioner is that her application for H.C.S.(Judicial Branch) Examination-2012 has been wrongly rejected as having been received after the cut-off date though it was sent through registered post on 11.1.2013.

Note (ii) Clause 26 of the advertisement (Annexure P-1) contemplates that the application must reach commission's office by close of office working on last date for receipt of application i.e.17.01.2013.

Clause 22 of the advertisement contemplates that no allegation that the application form has been lost or delayed in the post office or that the application form has been sent by late by the candidate's employer will not be considered.

Though CWP No.3752 of 2013 claiming similar relief has been dismissed but learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that CWP No.4640 o”

2. the petitioner is entitled to be restituted to the same position as it existed prior to the date of sending of the application form through registered post in view of the maxim Restitutio in integrum.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India versus M/S.Devi Ispat LTD.and otheRs.2010 SC 64.particularly para 38, which reads as under:- “38.

Although ordinarily a superior court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction would not enforce the terms of a contract qua contract, it is trite that when an action of the State is arbitrary or discriminatory and, thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, a writ petition would be maintainable.”

We do not find any merit in the arguments raised.

The condition in the advertisement was clear and specific that the application has to be received in the office of the commission on or before 17.01.2013.

It was also stipulated that postal delays will not be a ground for entertaining the application though received after the cut-off date.

The judgement relied upon by the petitioner relates to availing of credit facilities by the borrower.

It is in the circumstances of the aforesaid case that the Court observed that the writ petition would be maintainable.

Maintainability of the writ petition and the grant of relief are two different things.

The cut-off date for receipt of applications in the office of the Commission for entertaining the application has been specifically mentioned in the advertisement.

No Court can tinker with the cut-off date.

Any such tinkering with the cut-off date for receipt of application will give rise to an uncertain situation.

CWP No.4640 o”

3. In view of the aforesaid, we find no merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE 04 03.2013 sk