Vineet Saran, J. - (1.) Heard Sri L.K. Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents No. 1 and 2 and Sri P.K. Jaiswal, learned Standing Counsel for Union of India for respondents No. 3 and 4. A counter affidavit on behalf of the State of U.P. has been filed, to which a rejoinder affidavit has been filed today. With consent of the learned Counsel for the parties this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.
(2.) In response to an advertisement dated 6.5.2008 issued by the Director General, Medical and Health Service, U.P., Lucknow, respondent No. 2 for appointment of Lab Assistants (Village), the petitioner has filled up the requisite form and as required, had sent the form in the printed envelope addressed to the respondent No. 2 by Speed-post on 12.5.2008. The application form had to be submitted only through Speed-post or Registered-post and not by hand. The categorical case is that the self addressed envelope had been provided along with the form and as such there could not be any mistake on the part of the petitioner in giving the address. The application form had to reach the respondent by 23.5.2008. Now what happened in this case is that the Post & Telegraph Department, instead of delivering the application in the office of respondent No. 2, delivered, it to a wrong office of the State Government, as would be clear from the communication dated 17.9.2008 of the Post & Telegraph Department stating therein that it was their mistake due to which the application did not reach the office of respondent No. 2 and had been delivered at a wrong office of the State Government, which had been returned to the Post & Telegraph Department and was thus, vide communication dated 17.9.2008, returned to the petitioner. A copy of the said letter has been filed along with this writ petition. The original envelope has been produced before me which shows that the address of the respondent No. 2 was printed on the envelope and thus it cannot be said that there was any mistake on the part of the petitioner. In the counter affidavit also, in paragraph 10, the State Government has accepted that it was the fault of the Postal department, meaning thereby that it was neither the fault of the petitioner nor of the State-respondents.
(3.) It has been contended that no written examination or test was to be held and only interviews were to be taken of the applicants. It is the specific case of the petitioner that there are more than 1200 posts and there are only 600 and odd eligible candidates who were found eligible and have been interviewed. The respondents do not dispute this position in the counter affidavit. The connection of the learned Counsel for the petitioner thus is that since the petitioner has been deprived of being interviewed for appointment on the post of Lab Assistant (Village) because of no fault of his, which the State-respondents also admit, the petitioner may now be interviewed by the competent authority.;