Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) ADMITTEDLY , the application of petitioner was received beyond time prescribed in Advertisement. Learned counsel for petitioner tried to submit that the mode of communication was only registered/speed post and therefore Post Office was agent of respondents and hence for late delivery by Post Office, petitioner cannot be made to suffer. However, this question has been answered by Full Bench of this Court in Neena Chaturvedi Vs. Public Service Commission U.P. and others, 2010 (9) ADJ 152 (FB) which has been followed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 68506 of 2011 (Ramasre Singh & others Vs. State of U.P. & others) decided on 29.11.2011 wherein it was held as under: Law thus has been clarified that even when applications are to be received by a particular cut of date assuming that there is an offer and acceptance, receipt of the application by that cut -off -date only would make the acceptance complete. Once Full Bench judgment of this Court is there and same proceeds to mention that if the postal rule is made applicable in matters of inviting application to appear for an examination or for an interview and applications are to be sent by post, even if one application does not reach in time on account of postal delay to scrap the examination or hold special examination in such cases would produce manifest inconvenience and absurdity. In view of reasoning giving by Full Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case the proposition as has been propounded before this Court that postal rule should be made applicable cannot be accepted, inasmuch as here applications in question have been sent by petitioners to Public Service Commission after fulfilling the same on their prescribed format but has failed to reach its destination within time frame provided for. In view of this question of applicability of postal rule cannot be accepted and here reasoning given by Full Bench of this Court has to be accepted and in all eventuality applications were required to reach to the Commission within prescribed time. Much emphasis has been laid that postal department has been representing and virtually ensured to deliver the application within 48 hours in view of this petitioners legitimately expected that there application would reach within time prescribed and for this purpose reliance has been placed on the judgment in the case of Ramendra Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and others (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23662 of 2009) decided on 15.05.2009. Principle which has been rendered in the Division Bench Judgment of this Court will not come to the rescue of the petitioners, in view precise reasoning given by Full Bench of this Court and judicial discipline does not warrant to take any different or contrary view. Petitioners can always go for damages against postal department before appropriate form Consequently, both the writ petitions are dismissed." In view of above, I find no merit in the writ petition. Dismissed.;