M. B. SHARMA, J. - (1.) APPLICATIONS were invited by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') for recruitment to the posts of Legal Assistants. The last date of the receipt of the applications was July 30, 1988. The petitioner sent her application under regis-tered post on July 23, 1988, but it appears that the application from of the petitioner was only received in the office of the Commission on August 1, 1988 i. e. after July 30, 1988 the last date fixed for the submission of the applications. The petitioner was intimated vide Annexure-2 that her application from was only received on August 1, 1988 i. e. after the last date and, therefore, it shall not be considered.
(2.) AGGRIEVED against the aforesaid Annexure-2, the petitioner has moved this Court. The principal contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner sent the application form by registered post within time on July 23, 1988 and it was either wrongly delivered in the office of the Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer and had reached the office of the Commission only on August 1, 1988, the petitioner cannot be at fault and, therefore, the delay should be condoned and the application should be treated to have been received in time. He further contends that the very fact that Annexure-2 was sent on August 8, 1988 was received by the petitioner on August, 9, 1988 goes to show that it is reasonable to receive delivery of letter the second day of its posting from Sikar to Ajmer, Mr, Khan contended that for the fault of the postal authorities the Commission cannot be held to be at fault if it rejects the application which is received after July 30,1988, the last date fixed for receipt of applications. The postal authorities do not act as agent of the Commission and if the letter is delivered after July 30, 1988, admittedly the application was received in the office of the Commission on August 1,1988 after July 30, 1988. the last date fixed for receipt of the applications, the application had been rightly rejected by the Commission. A look at the notice inviting applications for the posts of Legal Assistants for the examination to be held in 1988 and more so its Clause (iv) will show that last date fixed for receipt of applications was July 30, 1988 and it was clearly mentioned that any application form received after the aforesaid date shall not be accepted. It was further mentioned that all applications sent through post or through any other mode must reach in the office of the Commission on the last date, otherwise for delay, if any, the Commission shall not be responsible. Mr. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance in support of his contention on the case of Ravi Prakash vs. Chairman, UP. Public Service Commission, Civil Writ petition No. 11224 of 1981, decided by the Allahabad High Court on July 7, 1982. In the aforesaid case June 20,1981 was the last date fixed for receipt of applications. The application form of the petitioner was sent from Gorakhpur on June 15,1981, but the same was any how received after June 20, 1981 the last date fixed for submission of the application forms. In that case the petitioner was informed by the Commission that due to the application having not received in time, the, same was rejected. The case was taken up to the High Court and the High Court has dismissed the writ petition. It was observed by the High Court that for the postal delay, if any, the Commission cannot be held responsible. The expression used in Clause (iv) cannot leave any doubt in anybody's mind that the application form had to be reach in the office of the Commission on or before the last date fixed for receipt of the application forms. Firstly, if delivery of letter could be lawfully refused by the Commission, it could refuse delivery of application by post as well. It was further held that if the application form did not reach the Commission before the date fixed, the reason being immaterial the Commission could not be said to have committed any mistake in that case. We may state that for the mistake of postal authorities the Commission cannot be held responsible. Instances may not be lacking when the concerned postman may wrongly deliver the letter, even a registered letter, and there may be instance that a letter may not be delivered for reasons which may not be proper, but for that matter it cannot be said that if the form is delivered after the last date fixed and in delivering the form late the postal authorities are responsible, the Commission has to accept the application which is received after the last date fixed for submission of the applications. Admittedly in this case the application form of the petitioner was not received in the office of the Commission till the last date fixed for receipt of the applications i. e. July 30, 1988, Merely because of the fault of the post-man concerned the Commission did not receive the application till the last date fixed for receipt of the applications it cannot be said that it could not have rejected the application. We may state that postal authorities cannot be held to be agents of the Commission and the Commission is not responsible for any fault of the postal authorities. We find no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed summarily. . ;