Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Brajesh Kumar v. U.P. Public Service Commission And Others - WRIT - A No. 11646 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 2757 (13 September 2005)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No. 3

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.  11646  of  2005.

Brajesh Kumar. ...... ...... ..... Petitioner.


The Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission,

Allahabad, through its Chairman and others. ...... Respondents.



   (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amitava Lala and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prakash Krishna)  


For the Petitioner : Sri  Surendra Pratap Singh.

For the Respondents : Sri M. A. Qadeer.


Amitava Lala, J.-- It appears to this Court that the petitioner's challenge is in respect of non-grant of admit card for sitting in Combined State/Upper Subordinate Services Backlog (Special Selection) Examination, 2004 in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, Allahabad. The petitioner has applied by speed post on 02nd June, 2004 from Lucknow G.P.O. vide receipt No. SP EE000098146 IN. However, no admit card was issued to him on the plea that there is no application in the record of the Commission. The petitioner obtained a certificate from the Head Post Office, Allahabad in this regard, wherein the postal authorities certified that the application was correctly delivered to the addressee on 04th June, 2004 i.e. within the prescribed time 10th June, 2004. Since he was not allowed to appear in the examination and no admit card was issued to him, this writ petition was filed before this Court when interim order was passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 25th Feburary, 2005. The interim order passed by this Court is quoted hereunder:

"Counsel for the petitioner submits that his form for PCS examination was received by the Commission in time yet no roll number has been allotted to him.

Issue notice. Notice on behalf of respondent has been accepted by Sri MA Quadeer. He prays and is granted two weeks time to file counter affidavit and a weeks time for rejoinder affidavit. List immediately thereafter.

In the meantime, the petitioner will be permitted to appear provisionally in PCS (Preliminary) examination on 27.2.2005 with Indian History (Code 07) as optional paper, however, his result will not be declared.

Copy of this order may be given to the counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges today."

Obviously on the basis of such interim order the petitioner sat in the examination provisionally but his result has not been declared.

On the exchange of affidavits, we find that the respondents have taken the plea in paragraph Nos. 6 and 8 of the counter affidavit by saying that the application of the petitioner was not received as such it was not possible to issue any admit card. Secondly, the petitioner misconceived the facts since no application has been received, there is no question of issuance of any admit card. Verbally Mr. Qadeer has taken the plea that as because the certificate has been issued by the Head Post Office, Allahabad but not by the sender's post office at Lucknow or branch post office within the campus of the Public Service Commission, certificate of Head Post Office, annexure-4 to the writ petition, can not be relied upon. We can not agree with such submission of Mr. Qadeer since the certification of addressee's Head Post Office is far more authentic certificate in respect of despatch. That apart we have to give a presumptive value of evidence in respect of the activities of the governmental authorities entrusted by the Government in accordance with law. There is no embargo upon the Head Post Office, Allahabad about issuance of such certificate. Post Office within the campus of the Commission is subordinate under such Head Post Office.

Therefore, taking into totality of the matter we are of the view that the petitioner will file a copy of the application for the purpose of preparation of records of the respondents as early as possible preferably within a period of fortnight from this date along with requisite fees and subject to fulfilment of such obligation the Commission will release the result of the petitioner and releasing of such result will not henceforth be declared as provisional but final.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed.

However, no order is passed as to costs.

(Justice Amitava Lala)

I agree.

(Justice Prakash Krishna)

Dated: 13th September, 2005.



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.