MUKESH CHANDRA ARYA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS
LAWS(UTN)-2012-4-143
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on April 27,2012

Mukesh Chandra Arya Appellant
VERSUS
State of Uttarakhand and others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) HAVING heard Mr. R.C. Tamta, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondents, it transpires that petitioner, a scheduled caste candidate, worked in the Forest Department as 'Seasonal Worker' since 20.05.1999 to 31.08.2004 i.e. for more than five years, he rendered his services to the Forest Department as 'Seasonal Worker'. On 31.07.2008, the Department notified the vacancies for the post of Beet Officer. Total vacancies were 15, out of which 3 were reserved for the scheduled caste candidate, which had to be supplied from the 'Seasonal Worker'. Petitioner was the sole candidate under his category. He applied for the same and qualified the written as well as physical standards examinations but was denied appointment on the post of Beet Officer for the reasons never told to him.
(2.) CONSEQUENTLY , he knocked the door of this Court by way of filing writ petition no. 544 (SS) of 2011 titled as Mukesh Chandra Arya Vs. State of Uttarakhand. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 04.11.2011 with a direction to the respondents to advertise the post immediately within a period of eight weeks again because the said post, as admitted by the Department, was still lying vacant and the petitioner was extended a liberty to apply against the said post. In compliance of the said direction, an advertisement was published on 15.11.2011 inviting applications for the post of Beet Officer through registered post and the application should have been received in the Department till 25.11.2011. Petitioner applied for the said post but unfortunately his application was probably got received in the Department on 26.11.2011, so his application was rejected by the concerned Officer on the ground that the same has been received with delay of one day.
(3.) HAVING considered all the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the view that it is an act of high handedness on the part of respondent no. 3 - Divisional Forest Officer, Soil Conservation, Nainital because span of ten days for receiving the applications by registered post was too little and it should have been at least one month, as every time people are not so cautious to have a sharp vigil over every advertisement published in Newspaper. Many a times, it is bypassed from the sight of eyes and till the time one comes to know about the publication of the advertisement, time got expired. Besides, Postal Department in our country is not so efficient, to provide quick services to the consumer, as to receive the post and deliver it to the destination within the shortest possible time. So this is highly unjust on the part of the respondent no. 3 to give only ten days time for receiving the applications.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.