CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court

Rejecting the Application Solely Due to Postal Delay Would Result in an Unfair Denial of Opportunity: Punjab and Haryana High Court

11 February 2025 8:06 PM

By: sayum


In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court directed the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, to reconsider the application of a candidate whose documents were delayed due to a postal error. The court emphasized the importance of fairness and institutional discretion in handling such cases, potentially impacting future recruitment processes.

Sandeep Singh Parmar, the petitioner, applied for the position of Staff Car Driver at PGIMER as advertised on July 18, 2018. Despite clearing the written examination, his application documents, sent via speed post on January 8, 2019, reached PGIMER after the deadline of January 22, 2019, due to a mistake by the postal service. The application was initially rejected, prompting Parmar to file a writ petition.

Credibility of Postal Error: The court noted the detailed tracking history of the speed post and the postman's admission of the error. "It is clear that the delay was caused solely by the postal service," the bench remarked, stressing the legitimacy of Parmar's efforts to submit his documents on time.

Institutional Responsibility and Fairness: Addressing the broader implications, the court highlighted the responsibility of institutions to exercise discretion in exceptional cases. "Institutions must ensure that genuine candidates are not disadvantaged by errors beyond their control," the court observed.

Impact on Recruitment Process: The judgment acknowledged that the recruitment process must be fair and transparent but also flexible enough to address unforeseen issues. "Rigid adherence to deadlines without considering legitimate exceptions can lead to unjust outcomes," the bench stated.

The court extensively discussed the principles of fairness and institutional discretion. It referred to past judgments, emphasizing that while deadlines are crucial, they should not override equity and justice. "In this case, rejecting the application solely due to postal delay, when the error was promptly acknowledged and explained, would result in an unfair denial of opportunity," the judgment elaborated.

Justice Sanjay Vashisth remarked, "The recruitment process must balance strict adherence to rules with the need to ensure that deserving candidates are not unjustly excluded due to factors beyond their control."

The court's decision to allow PGIMER to reconsider Parmar's application underscores a commitment to fairness in public recruitment processes. This judgment sets a precedent for similar cases, ensuring that institutions adopt a balanced approach, considering both procedural integrity and individual equity.

Date of Decision: May 6, 2024

Latest Legal News