Case Brief: Secretary, U.P.S.C. & Anr. v S. Krishna Chaitanya

FACTS:
As per the respondent, he had filled up his application form for Civil Services Examination, 2010 and had sent the same to UPSC. However, the respondent did not receive the admission certificate even in the month of April, thus, he had made a representation to the appellants with regard to non-issuance of admission certificate to him. In reply, the appellants informed him that his application for Civil Services Examination (Preliminary), 2010 had not been received and the respondent was also requested to furnish acknowledgment card duly stamped by UPSC to enable the appellants to take further action in the matter.
But as the respondent had not received any acknowledgement card, he approached to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad praying, inter alia, for an interim relief to the effect   that   the   appellants   be   directed   to   furnish   an admission  certificate  to the respondent so that the respondent can take the examination. By an interim   order, the CAT directed the respondent to submit a copy   of   his application   form   to   the   appellants   and   directed the appellants to   issue   an admission certificate   to the respondent so that the respondent can take the examination. The Tribunal gave a final direction to the   appellants   to   declare   the   result   of   the   respondent   and   if   he   was   found successful in the Civil Services  Examination (Preliminary), he should also be permitted to take the Civil Services Examination (Mains) and should also be   permitted   to   appear   for   interview.
The aforestated order of the Tribunal was challenged before the High Court by the appellants. The High Court disposed of the petition by upholding the decision of the Tribunal. Hence, this present appeal lies before the Supreme Court.
ARGUMENTS BY THE APPELLANT:
The learned counsel explained   the   system   whereby   all   application forms   are   received   and     processed   by   the   appellants. It was further submitted  that even   in   the   packets containing   application   forms   received   on   29th  January,   2010,   the respondent’s form was not found.
ARGUMENTS BY THE RESPONDENT:
The counsel mainly submitted that the respondent had forwarded his application form through DTDC Courier and Cargo Ltd. and   the   courier   had   delivered   the   form   to   the   appellants   on   29th  January, 2010.   He also relied upon an affidavit filed by a responsible officer of the above named courier agency stating that the respondent’s application form was delivered to U.P.S.C. on 29th January,  2010.
HELD:
The Hon’ble Court observed that the respondent delayed in filing the case as according to the UPSC advertisement, a query has to be made, in case the admission certificate is not received, after 30 days from dispatching the apllication form.
The Court, therefore, held that the appellants   cannot   be   directed   to   declare   the   final   result   of   the respondent, especially when his application form had not been received by the appellants within the period prescribed.