- (1.) The Petitioner pursuant to an advertisement, which had invited applications for the post of Lecturer in Government Intermediate College, which were to be received in the office of the Commission till 20th February, 2009 either by speed post or by hand, sent her application by speed post on 17th February, 2009, which was received in the office of the Commission on 21st February, 2009. The Petitioner had prayed for a mandamus to direct the Commission to accept the application form and allow the Petitioner to participate in the process of selection. In that petition, by order dated 28.5.2009, the present reference.
(2.) A learned single Judge of this Court, in this case, Neena Chaturvedi v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad, 2009 3 ESC 2082. has been pleased to refer the matter for consideration by a larger Bench. Some of the relevant paragraphs read as under: 49. Although I am conscious about the legal proposition that a little difference in the facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in presidential (precedential) value of a decision but having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion, that in such cases the moving factor or decessive factor is not prescription of one mode or several modes by the addressee to send the articles to him rather it is express or implied authorisation by the addressee to send the articles to him by post. ultimately decides the issue and makes the post office an agent of the addressee. It is immaterial that the addressee has provided any other or more alternative modes to the sender including through post-office to send the articles to the addressee. In my opinion, prescription of such other alternative mode for sending the articles to addressee would not change the legal position stated hereinbefore. However, in cases where addressee does not prescribe any modes for sending the articles to him and merely time for receipt of the articles is fixed/prescribed and sender chooses by his own to send the articles to the addressee through registered post, in that eventuality alone the post office would continue to act as agent of the sender and not of addressee and for any delay in transit the addressee would not be responsible for simple reason that in such situation it cannot be held that addressee has expressly or impliedly authorised or requested the senders to send the articles through registered post. 50. In view of aforesaid discussion, in my opinion, the decisions rendered by Division Benches of this Court in Ram Autar Singh v. Public Service Commission, U.P., Allahabad and Ors.,1987 UPLBEC 316, (by Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. N. Misra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. P. Misra), in Anupam v. Public Service Commission, U.P. Allahabad and Anr. W.P. No. 57508 of 2005 decided on 4.10.2005, (by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amitava Lala and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prakash Krishna), in Adil Khan v. State of U.P. and Ors. W.P. No. 23152 of 2006 decided on 5.5.2006, (by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.R. Alam and Hon'ble Mr, Justice Sudhir Agarwal) require re-consideration by larger Bench/Full Bench comprising of at least three or more than three Judges of this Court in the light of decisions rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay v. Ogale Glass Works Ltd., 1954 AIR(SC) 429, Jagdish Mill's case , Indore Malwa United Mill's case , Unit Trust of India v. Ravinder Kumar Shukla's case and in Bhikha Lal's case decided by Full Bench of this Court in context of questions formulated by me In preceding part of this judgment. 51. Since the postal service constituted under the provisions of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 is entrusted public service and stood test of time, therefore, having regard to the facts that the questions involved in the case have wide impact upon the large public interest touching the fundamental rights of the candidates under Articles 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, an authoritative decision is required to be rendered by Full Bench of this Court comprising of at least three or more than three Judges so that 'he matter may be set at rest for .11 the times to come in future. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice is requested to constitute a Full Bench of this Court comprising of at least three or more than three Judges for deciding the questions formulated by me in preceding part of this judgment as early as possible.
(3.) Though the precise question has not been formulated, considering paragraphs 49, 50 and 51 and the reliance placed on the Full Bench judgment of Bhikha Lal and Ors. v. Munna Lal, 1974 AllLJ 470, and Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay v. Ogale Glass Works Ltd., 1954 AIR(SC) 429, and the question referred for consideration by the learned Judge in answering the issue fore him and which reads as under: Whether in given facts and circumstances of the case, the post office is agent of the addressee (Commission) or sender and as to whether the Petitioner can be made to suffer on account of default of the post office in delivering the application form of the Petitioner to the Commission after last date of receipt of application form which was sent by the Petitioner within prescribed time?;