V.N. Sinha, J.@mdashHeard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Counsel for the Hon''ble High Court.
Petitioner was an applicant for the post of Data Entry Operator in the High Court, Patna, which was notified vide Employment Notice No. 1 of
2003 in the Dainik Jagran newspaper Patna Edition dated 29.1.2003 as contained in Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the
High Court. He was provided with admit card indicating Roll No. 602 under memo No. 8115 dated 23.5.2006 calling upon him to appear for
interview to be held in the premises of the High Court at Patna on 16.7.2006 at 11 A.M. Before petitioner could appear in the interview on
16.7.2006, the interview was postponed and he was directed vide Memo No. 11052 dated 14.9.2007 as contained in Annexure-3 to this
application to appear for the interview on 3rd December, 2007. Before petitioner could appear in the interview on 3.12.2007 under notice dated
6.11.2007 as published in the different newspapers i.e. Hindustan, Hindustan Times, Dainik Jagran and Times of India, all Patna Edition on
7.11.2007 his interview was preponed and fixed for 2.12.2007 in which he could not appear as on 7.11.2007 he was at Guahati where there is no
circulation of the different newspapers of Patna edition in which notice dated 7.11.2007 was published.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that by repeated postponement/preponement of the interview petitioner could not appear in the interview
held on 2.12.2007 as on that date he was at Guahati and he could not notice the advertisement published in the different newspapers in Patna since
those newspapers are not in circulation at Guahati. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that advertisement, Annexure-A would indicate
that the notice for employment was issued to the citizen to India and citizen of India may be domicile in any part of India, as such, according to the
petitioner notice to postpone/prepone the interview should have been published in newspapers with all India Circulation so that petitioner, who at
the relevant time was at Guahati could have known that his interview has been preponed to 2.12.2007 from 3.12.2007. It is also submitted on
behalf of the petitioner that the notice preponing the interview which was sent at his home address under certificate of posting, when never reached
the petitioner and in these circumstances, the petitioner reported for interview on 3.12.2007 as was notified earlier should have been interviewed
by the authorities but as the authorities have not chosen to interview him on 3.12.2007 on the earlier date fixed, the entire selection process should
be annulled.
2. Counsel for the High Court with reference to the averments made in the counter-affidavit has submitted that against ten vacancies notified for
appointment, 1062 applications were received, out of which, 651 including that of the petitioner was found in order and the applicants whose
application was in order were sent interview letters asking them to appear for interview on the date fixed which had to be postponed/preponed
considering the exigencies, which were beyond the control of the administration and the administration had no option but to postpone/prepone the
date of interview which was always notified in the press so that all the eligible candidates who have been provided with admit cards may appear on
the date fixed for their interview. Counsel for the High Court further submitted that against 651 admit cards issued, 353 candidates actually
appeared for computer test, out of whom forty were selected for interview and ultimately ten were finally selected against the vacancy notified for
appointment, who joined between 13.2.2008 to 22.2.2008.
3. Having heard Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that considering the exigency of the situation, it is the right of the employer to
postpone/prepone the date of interview and appreciating the exigency if the authorities have chosen to postpone/prepone the date of interview then
no fault can be found with such postponement/preponement of the date of interview as the date of interview was always notified in the press not in
one newspaper but in several newspapers, of course Patna Edition since the applicants are resident of Bihar. Besides publishing the
postponement/preponement notice in the press, the candidates were also individually informed under certificate of posting about which there is a
presumption that the delivery must have been made. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the selection process which has
already been concluded and the selectees have already joined the ten number of posts advertised for appointment of Data Entry Operator. This
writ application is, accordingly dismissed.