Interview call letter sent by email held valid even when postal delivery was made on the date of interview making attendance impossible
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 2522 (2018) 09 HC
The petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Manager (Finance) in government corporation. The main case of the petitioner was that he had received the call letter for attending the interview, only on the same day in another city and as a consequence, it was impossible for him to attend the interview.
It was also submitted that though the call letter was ante dated. It was dispatched 6 days later than the date mentioned on the call letter. More ever, it was delivered to the petitioner the day of the interview only.
The petitioner also submitted that, in the list of candidates shortlisted for interview, he figured at the top of the Scheduled Caste candidates. However, despite being very intelligent, he was deprived of opportunity to be appointed as Assistant Manager, owing to the delay, on the part of the Corporation, in communicating, to him, the date of interview.
The Corporation, on the other hand contended that the advertisement made it absolutely clear that communications would only be by e-mail. It also cautioned candidates, for this reason, to keep checking their email inbox.
It was submitted that the date of the interview was intimated to the petitioner, by email, 10 days prior to the interview. It was not disputed by the petitioner, that the e-mail address actually belonged to him.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that as per instructions given in the advertisement on How to apply Online for the post of “Assistant Manager (Finance)”, it was clearly advised that the candidate should have a valid E-mail id which should be kept active till the declaration of final result. It was also essential for candidates in getting communication/interview advice, etc, by E-mail. Candidates were also advised to keep checking their spam/junk mail box, in addition to inbox folder. No change in E-mail id will be entertained during the entire process of the recruitment.
The Petitioner contended that these instructions, under the head “How to apply online” were not part of the advertisement issued. However, the Corporation stated that all the entire documents including the instructions on “How to apply online” were, in fact, part of the advertisement, and were available online at the time when the candidates, including the petitioner applied for the posts.
The Hon’ble High Court opined that there was no reason to doubt that the said instructions were, in fact, available to the petitioner, at the time when he applied for the post.
According to the Hon’ble High Court, it was apparent that it was the petitioner who had himself been remiss in failing to keep track of his e-mail inbox, in which, ten days prior to the interview, the requisite call letter had been dispatched to him. He cannot, therefore, seek to piggyback on the fact that the postal communication of the said interview reached to him only on the same date.
Accordingly, the writ was dismissed.
