TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 1099X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... days from 10 AM to 5 PM till 31.01.2010 in the office of respondent No.2. Pursuant to the above Advertisement, appellant submitted her application form on 29.01.2010 along with all required documents and certificates as mentioned in the advertisement for selection of Anganwadi Worker for Jamchhapar Anganwadi Centre. Respondent No.5 submitted her incomplete application form, i.e., without Nativity Certificate for the above Anganwadi Centre. Respondent No.2, after verification of applications of Jamchhapar Anganwadi Centre, vide Notification No.138 dated 05.02.2010 invited objections against candidates short-listed in the said Notification. In the said Notification, appellant and respondent No.5 were both short-listed for Jamchhapar Anganwadi Centre. The Selection Committee headed by the Sub-Collector, Sonepur-respondent No.4 on 07.04.2010 met for selection of Anganwadi Workers for various Anganwadi Centres as advertised under Annexure-1. As the respondent No.5 was not issued with a Nativity Certificate within the date line of filing of application form, which was issued by the Additional Tahasildar, Binka on 01.02.2010, the Selection Committee did not consider her candidature ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant submitted that the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition without realizing/considering/appreciating the fact that as on the last date stipulated in the advertisement, respondent No.5 was not eligible and she had not got any Nativity Certificate at all, which was procured after the cut-off date prescribed in the advertisement, i.e., after 31.01.2010. The application submitted by respondent No.5 on 30.01.2010 without the required Nativity Certificate was incomplete. Therefore, the Selection Committee could not have accepted such an incomplete application by surpassing the laid down principles of law vis- -vis the Anganwadi Worker Guidelines which mandate that an Anganwadi Worker should be a resident of the Anganwadi Centre for which she is applying. After submission of incomplete application, respondent No.5 should not have been allowed to rectify her mistake by curing the defect and submitting the Nativity Certificate, which is obtained beyond the last date of submission of application. Respondent No.5 had also not given any undertaking to produce such Nativity Certificate on a subsequent date. As per the conditions stipulated in the Advertisement, every applican ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation on 30.01.2010 without Nativity Certificate as the same was not issued to her. It is further submitted that the appellant has secured only 43.2% marks where respondent No.5 has secured 47.6% marks. Apart from that, respondent No.5 is otherwise more suitable. Thus, respondent No.5 is more meritorious than the appellant. The Selection Committee did not consider the candidature of respondent No.5 on the ground that the Nativity Certificate was not enclosed with the application form submitted on 30.01.2010; therefore they have selected the appellant. Learned Single Judge has analyzed the fact and law and come to the conclusion that there was no infirmity in the decision taken by the appellate authority. Decision of the Appellate Authority being in consonance with the law does not call for any interference. Admittedly, according to the Notification, the last date to furnish all the documents was 31.01.2010, i.e., Sunday, which was a holiday. Respondent No.5 therefore submitted her Nativity Certificate on the very next day, i.e., 01.02.2010, which was a working day. Thus, the act of respondent No.5 is protected under Section 10 of the General Clauses Act. In support her contention, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been accepted by the Selection Committee. With this finding, the appeal was allowed and selection of the appellant was set aside. Learned Single Judge also came to the conclusion that 31.01.2010 being a holiday, applying principles of natural justice and rule of prudence respondent No.5 s application should have been accepted on the very next working day, i.e., 01.02.2010. With this observation, learned Single Judge has confirmed the decision of respondent No.3-ADM, Subarnapur, who has allowed the appeal of respondent No.5. 9. The order of the First Appellate Authority, which has been extracted in the order of the learned Single Judge reveals that respondent No.5 produced all the documents even the photocopy of the identity card along with her application dated 30.01.2010 but without Nativity Certificate. Learned Single Judge observed that obviously, when the petitioner filed her application on 30.01.2010, she could not get her Nativity Certificate, though she had applied for the same much before, 31.01.2010 being a holiday . There is no denial to the above fact by the appellant. Moreover, had 31.01.2010 not been a holiday, respondent No.5 could have obtained the Nativity Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt or office, and that period expires on a holiday, then 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 reason is that law does not compel the performance of an impossibility. (See Hossein Ally v. Donzelle) Every consideration of justice and expediency would require that the accepted principle which underlies Section 10 of the General Clauses Act should be applied in cases where it does not otherwise in terms apply. The principles underlying are lex non cogit ad impossibilia (the law does not compel a man to do the impossible) and actus curiae neminem gravabit (the act of court shall prejudice no man). Above being the position, there is nothing infirm in the orders passed by the forums below. However, the rate of interest fixed appears to be slightly on the higher side and is reduced to 9% to be paid with effect from 3-12-2001 i.e. the date on which the letter was received by HUDA. 13. The matter can be looked at from a different angle. Law is well-settled that the Court has to consider the scope and application of doctrine of lex non cogit at impossibilia (the law does not compel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssion of application was 31.01.2010, which was a holiday and therefore, the last date of submission of application shall be treated as the next working day, i.e., 01.02.2010 on which date respondent No.5 produced the Nativity Certificate. Therefore, as on 01.02.2010, the application filed by respondent No.5 was complete in all respects. The position would have been different if 31.01.2010 would not have been a holiday and respondent No.5 filed her Nativity Certificate on 01.02.2010. 18. The decision of this Court in Madhumita Das (supra) has no application to the present case as the fact of that case is completely different from the facts of the present case. In that case, the petitioner did not submit her application complete in all respect by the last date of receipt of the application. Therefore, this Court did not find any infirmity in the action of the Commissioner in rejecting application of the petitioner in that case and not calling her for interview. However, in the present case, as stated above, the last date fixed for submission of application forms was a holiday. Therefore, the next working day is treated as last date for filing of the application forms and on that d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
