S.S. Nijjar, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to treat the From sent by the petitioner for the post of Lecturer (History) HES -II to be received within time and further for the issuance of a direction to respondent No. 1 to take interview of the petitioner for considering the petitioner for appointment to the post of Lecturer (History) HES -II in the category of posts reserved for Scheduled Caste (B). A prayer is also made to award the damages/compensation to the petitioner from respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
(2.) THE controversy raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered against the petitioner by a Full Bench decision in the case of Rahul Prabhakar v. Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar and others, 1997(3) R.S.J. 475 :, 1997(3) SCT 526 (P&H)(FB). In the present case, respondent No. 1 advertised posts of Lecturer (HES -II) and invited applications from the eligible candidates,. The last date of receipt of the applications form was stipulated as 18.06.2001. On 08.06.2001, the petitioner posted the application form to respondent No. 1 vide Speed Post No. EE799435203IN. The postal department in Kuruk -shetra University sent the same to respondent No. 3, i.e. the Post Master, G.P.O. Sector -17, Chandigarh. It is pleaded that respondent No. 3 instead of delivering the envelope to Haryana Public Service Commissioner (Respondent No. 1), delivered the same to Staff Selection Commission (Respondent No. 2), before 18.06.2001. As a result of the negligence on the part of respondent No. 3, the envelope containing the application form did not reach respondent No. 1 by the stipulated time. On enquiries, it was found that the envelope was still lying with respondent No. 2. On 18.07.2001, on the request of the petitioner, respondent No. 2 returned the envelope to respondent No. 3. On 19.07.2001, respondent No. 3 delivered the envelope to respondent No. I. On the same very day, i.e. 19.07.2001, petitioner made a representation to respondent No. 1 for accepting the application form and to permit him to give the interview. On 26.07.2001, the petitioner met the Chairman of respondent No. 1, but he was orally informed that his application cannot be considered.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the negligence of the Post Office. Had the Post Office performed its duty diligently, the application form of the petitioner would have reached respondent No . 1 within the stipulated period. Learned counsel further submitted that the Post Master General performs statutory functions under Sections 3 and 4 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1893.;