2009 (11) TMI 820 - SC - Indian Laws

The last date of submitting the application along with medical certificate was 14th of April 2003 which was a gazetted holiday on account of Ambedkar Jayanti. The application of the applicant was incomplete only because it did not contain the medical certificate. The explanation of the appellant is that in view of the 14th April being a holiday and the previous days were also holidays he could not obtain the medical certificate and he obtained it on the very next day i.e. 15th April and submitted it on that day itself. - Held that - The application filed by the appellant on the post of Constable Amorer Course is valid

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court were:

• Whether the appellant's application for the post of Armourer, submitted on the last date along with educational qualifications but without the required medical certificate, could be considered valid when the medical certificate was submitted on the next working day following a series of holidays.
• Whether the provisions of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which govern computation of time when the last day falls on a holiday, apply to the present case.
• Whether the principles of equity and justice embodied in Section 10 should override the strict procedural requirement of submission of the medical certificate on or before the last date.
• Whether the orders of the lower authorities and the High Court dismissing the appellant's writ petitions were legally sustainable.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Validity of the application submitted without medical certificate on the last date but with medical certificate submitted on the next working day

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court examined Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which provides that if the last day for doing an act falls on a holiday, the act done on the next working day shall be deemed timely. The Court also referred to authoritative precedents including:

• Harinder Singh v. Karnail Singh (AIR 1957 SC 271), where a four-Judge Bench explained that if a prescribed period expires on a holiday, the act done on the next working day shall be deemed done in time.
• Ghaganti Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1986) 3 SCC 141, which accepted the interpretation of Section 10 in the context of Section 167 CrPC and emphasized justice and expediency.
• Huda v. Dr. Babeswar Kanhar (2005) 1 SCC 191, which underscored the principle that law does not compel performance of an impossibility and that a party prevented from acting due to reasons beyond control should be allowed to act on the next opportunity.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the last date for submission was 14.04.2003, which was a gazetted holiday (Ambedkar Jayanti), preceded by other holidays including Ramnavami and second Saturday. The appellant submitted the application with educational qualifications on 14.04.2003 but could not attach the medical certificate on that day due to these holidays. The medical certificate was obtained and submitted on 15.04.2003, the next working day.

The Court held that the application was incomplete only due to the absence of the medical certificate and that the appellant was prevented by circumstances beyond his control from submitting the medical certificate on the last date. Therefore, the principles of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act applied, allowing the submission on the next working day to be considered timely.

Key evidence and findings: The appellant's explanation regarding the sequence of holidays and the inability to obtain the medical certificate on the last date was accepted. The respondents' rejection of the application solely on the ground of non-submission of the medical certificate on 14.04.2003 was found to be unreasonable.

Application of law to facts: Applying Section 10, the Court concluded that the submission of the medical certificate on 15.04.2003 should be deemed as timely since the last day fell on a holiday. The appellant's application thus should have been considered valid.

Treatment of competing arguments: The respondents argued that the application was liable to be dismissed due to delay in submission of the medical certificate. The Court rejected this strict interpretation, emphasizing the equitable principle that law does not compel performance of impossibility and that procedural requirements must be read in light of holidays and practical realities.

Conclusion: The Court held that the rejection of the application on the ground of late submission of the medical certificate was not sustainable and that the application should be considered valid.

Issue 2: Applicability of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act and principles of equity

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 10 of the General Clauses Act was the pivotal statutory provision. The Court also relied on the principle of equity and justice as expounded in various precedents, including the Harinder Singh case and Huda case, which emphasized that procedural timelines should not defeat substantive rights when prevented by holidays or other uncontrollable factors.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the lower courts failed to apply Section 10 and the equitable principles embedded therein. The Court reiterated that Section 10 is designed to avoid harsh consequences when deadlines fall on holidays and that it embodies a doctrine that law does not compel performance of impossibility.

Key evidence and findings: The Court found that the appellant was unable to procure the medical certificate on the last date due to holidays and that the subsequent submission was made at the earliest possible opportunity.

Application of law to facts: The Court applied Section 10 to hold that the appellant's act of submitting the medical certificate on the next working day was in due time.

Treatment of competing arguments: The respondents' strict adherence to the deadline without regard to the holiday context was rejected as contrary to the legislative intent and judicial precedents.

Conclusion: The Court held that Section 10 applies and that principles of equity require the appellant's application to be considered valid.

Issue 3: Legality of the orders of the lower authorities and High Court

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court considered the orders of the DIG PAC Barriely section and the High Court, which dismissed the appellant's writ petitions on the ground of delay in submission of the medical certificate.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court found that these orders were not based on sound principles as they failed to consider Section 10 and the equitable doctrines. The Court quashed the orders of the Single Judge dated 18.08.2008, the order dated 02.07.2003 passed by the DIG, and the Division Bench order dated 09.09.2008.

Key evidence and findings: The Court noted that the appellant's explanation for delay was reasonable and supported by the holiday calendar.

Application of law to facts: The Court applied the law to set aside the impugned orders and directed the respondents to consider the appellant's application on merit.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Court rejected the respondents' argument that the appellant was solely responsible for the delay and that the application was liable to be dismissed.

Conclusion: The Court held that the impugned orders were legally unsustainable and directed reconsideration of the application.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court held:

"Where, therefore, a period is prescribed for the performance of an act in a Court or office, and that period expires on a holiday, then according to the section the Act should be considered to have been done within that period, if it is done on the next day on which the Court or office is open."

"The underlying object of Section 10 is to enable a person to do what he should have done in a holiday, on the next working day. The said principle is based on doctrine that law does not compel the performance of an impossibility."

The Court concluded that the appellant's application for the post of Armourer, though incomplete on the last date due to non-submission of the medical certificate, was validly completed on the next working day in accordance with Section 10 of the General Clauses Act.

The Court quashed the impugned orders of the lower authorities and the High Court and directed that the appellant's application be considered on merit within six weeks.