- (1.) R. Dayal, J. The only point for decision in these writ petitions is whether it is open to the Public Service Commission to lay down in the advertisement inviting applications for preliminary examination for selec tion for the posts under the Combined State/upper Subordinate Service that every application shall be contained in one envelope and if more than one application form are contained in one envelope, they shall all be liable to be rejected and where applications more than one were sent in one envelope and were rejected for that reason, does the rejection amount to denial of equal opportunity guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India ?
(2.) BY means of an advertisement published in "weekly newspaper Rojgar Samachar dated 31-12-1994-6- 1-1995, the U. P. Public Service Com mission invited applications for a preliminary for the posts coming under the Combined State/upper Subordinate Services, inter alia providing : "application complete in all respects must reach the Secretary, (Deptt. No. A-l/e-1/94-95), Public Service Commission, 10, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Allahabad, U. P. 211018 either by registered post or by hand upto 5. 00p. m. on or before February 13, 1995. In the condition of being more than one application form in one envelope or being application forms of more than one advertise ment in one envelope all application forms will be rejected. " It is not disputed that the petitioners did not comply with this term of the advertisement inasmuch as they sent two or more application forms in one envelope. Accordingly, their applications were rejected. Some of them made representations and again sent their forms but they were not accepted for the reason that they were received after the prescribed date, i. e. 13-2-1995. The petitioners have raised different pleas in their respective petitions to challenge the rejection of their applications. It is apparent that even if any plea in any petition is accepted all the petitioners shall be entitled to relief. Some of the petitioners have taken the plea that in the examinations of 1991, 1992 and 1993, on similar facts, more than one application form sent in one envelope were accepted. Some have also taken the plea that Public Service Commissions in the States of Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh accept more than one application in a single envelope. One plea raised is that more than one application forms were sent in one envelope due to ignorance. Another plea is that the petitioners are poor persons being unemployed without earning anything and it is, therefore, vital for their survival to spare money. However, their common plea is that the rule of respondent Commission barring two or more applica tion forms in one envelope is totally illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16, 21 and 39 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have prayed for quashing the order of the respondent rejecting their representations, a declaration that the condition imposed in the advertisement regarding each application being in a separate envelope is null, void and unconstitutional and also a mandamus to the Commission to entertain the application forms of the petitioners. Comprehensive counter-affidavit has been filed by the Commission through its Section Officer and later also by its Secretary. The stand of the respondent Commission is that since the Commission has already taken a decision that only one application form should be sent in one envelope and that decision was published in the advertisement, the application forms sent by the petitioners were rightly rejected. According to the Commission the "purpose of sending two application forms in one envelope is to get roll number next to each other as the envelopes are opened and roll numbers are allotted accordingly. If there are two applications in one envelope they will get roll number next to each other. The Commission in order to check unfair means and mal-practices took a decision and advertised in the advertisement that each and every candidate should send one application form in one envelope as it is the only method by which there is a postal record or a record at the counter of the Commission that application of a candidate has been received by the Commission. If more than one applica tion is sent in one envelope then Commission does not have any postal record with regard to other candidates and any candidate can stand up at any point of time and say that he has sent his application in one envelope alongwith some other candidates which has been lost by the Commission will not be in a position to prove it as there is no postal record or any other record with the Commission. Further it will lead to other mal-practice as well. The Commission restricted sending one application in one envelope due to the aforesaid reasons as well as to check unfair means and copying in the preliminary examination because if two known candidates sit in the preliminary examination next to each other then there is every chance of copying as the preliminary examination is an objective type of examination and the candidates sitting next to each other may share amongst themselves in copying serial number of the correct answer of the question. . . . . . Similar terms and conditions have been mentioned in the Combined State/upper Subordinate Service (Preliminary) Examination 1995. " It would thus appear that the Commission took two pleas in justification of requiring each candidate to put one application form in a single envelope, one being to avoid or minimize the possibility of two known persons getting seats in close proximity, to minimize the possibility of copying or similar mal-practice and, the other being to have authentic record of every application being received within the prescribed period. An attempt has been made to counter the first plea in the rejoinder affidavit filed in writ petition No. 3494 of 1996 relating to Hans Raj Singh where it is said that the Commission has already taken a decision on 14-12- 1992 that all application forms whether received by ordinary post, registered post or at the counter should be inter mixed every day or every week, so that application forms deposited at one time may not get consecutive enrolment numbers.
(3.) WE have heard Sri R. G. Padia, Sri S. K. Mehrotra, Sri K. K. Roy, Sri Yar Mohammad, Sri S. Pandey, Sri S. K. Choudhary and Sri R. P. Yadav for Sri H. N. Singh, Advocates, on behalf of the petitioners and Sri V. M. Sahai, Advocate, on behalf of the respondent-Commission. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the requirement in the advertisement that one envelope shall contain not more than one application /orm is arbitrary and violates the fundamental right of equality of opportunity in State employment enshrined in Article 16 of the Constitu tion, for that requirement is not likely to achieve any of the objectives which were intended to be achieved and further that even if some inconve nience is to be caused to the Commission by accepting more than one appli cation form in one envelope, the inconvenience would be only slight and in order to save itself from that slight inconvenience there can be no justifica tion for the Commission to refuse to give opportunity to the petitioners to compete in the examination, particularly when in the previous years more than one application form were accepted in one envelope. In support of their arguments the learned counsel have referred to Indian Council of Legal Aid Advise v. Bar Council of India, 1995 (1) SCC 732 and D. S. Nakara v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130.;