Arun Tandon, J. - (1.) This is third inning before this Court in respect of the same grievance, namely admission to B.T.C. Training Course -2008. First a writ petition was filed by the Petitioner, being Writ Petition No. 64186 of 2009, which was decided under order dated 15.12.2009 requiring the authorities to consider the application of the Petitioner for admission to the said course in light of the judgment of the High Court in the case of Poonam Shukla and Ors. v/s. State of U.P. and others. The authorities did not comply with the order within the time specified. Therefore, contempt proceedings (2nd proceedings) were initiated, being Contempt Application (Civil) No. 1974 of 2010, wherein an order was passed asking the authorities to take appropriate decision in light of the judgment of Writ Court, referred to above.
(2.) The Principal, District Institute of Education and Training, Fatehpur under the impugned order dated 04.06.2010 has refused to consider the claim of the Petitioner for such admission, which has resulted in this second writ petition being filed before this Court (3rd proceedings). The objection taken under the order of the Principal, District Institute of Education and Training dated 04.06.2010 on the face of it appears to be arbitrary and too technical in nature. Petitioner is stated to have submitted an application for admission to B.T.C. Training Course -2008 on 19th February, 2009 by speed post, when the last date for submission of the application was 20th February, 2009. In the case of Poonam Shukla (supra) it has been held that even if the application has been dispatched on the last date by registered post, it would be presumed that the same has been sent within time. It is in this background the Principal, District Institute of Education and Training was required to examine the case of the Petitioner. Petitioner has produced a copy of the post office receipt, bearing No. SP -EU216467652 IN, for establishing that the application was dispatched on 19th February, 2010. The application was served in the office of the Principal subsequent to 20th February, 2010 and therefore it was returned without acceptance.
(3.) The Petitioner was called upon to produce the original envelope, which has been returned by the post office to him, and a particular date was fixed for the purpose.;