N.K.SODHI, J. - (1.) ORDER in this writ petition will dispose of writ petitions 14664, 14747, 14748, 12872 and 14440 of 1993 as well as common questions of law and fact are involved in all of them.
(2.) BY an advertisement published in June, 1993 the Punjab Public Service Commission, Patiala (for short, the Commission), as per its advertisement No. 6 invited applications from eligible candidates for the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) and Allied Services examination. The last date for receipt of applications was August 4, 1993 which was later extended to August 16, 1993 because the city of Patiala remained inaccessible for some days due to floods. The petitioner who fulfilled all the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement sent his application form duly filled in alongwith the examination fee to the Commission by registered post on July 17, 1993 as per postal receipt No. 143 of the same date issued from post office, Bhucho Mandi. Application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the same was received alter the last date for receipt of applications. It is stated that the petitioner met some officers of the Commission and pleaded that he had sent his application by registered post on July 17, 1993 and since there was sufficient time for the registered fetter to reach the Commission he was not at fault. As the petitioner was not being issued the roll number, he filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the action of the respondents in rejecting his application. By an interim order the Commission was directed to permit the petitioner to appear in the examination which commenced from December 2, 1993 but it was subject to the final order as may be passed in the writ petition. The sub-Post Master, Post Office, Bhucho Mandi from where the registered letter was sent has been impleaded as respondent No. 3. In the reply filed by the Commission, it is stated that the application was rejected because it was received on August 27, 1993 much beyond the last date fixed for the receipt of applications. In the short reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 3, it is stated that the registered letter which was sent by the petitioner on July 17, 1993 as per receipt No. 143 was delivered to the addressee on July 29, 1993.
(3.) IN view of the reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 3, it is clear that the application of the petitioner was received to the office of the Commission to time. It appears that the same might have been misplaced somewhere by the dealing Assistant. The applications of the petitioners to other writ petitions had also been rejected on the ground that they had been received after the last date for receipt of applications was over and those petitioners as well had appeared to the examination under the interim orders passed by this Court.;