A candidate cannot be excluded for postal delay after timely dispatch by an authorised mode.

The petitioner submitted his online application and paid the prescribed fee within the deadline.

He dispatched the hard copy and supporting documents by registered post on 8 September 2026, before the advertised deadline of 15 September 2026 at 5:00 p.m.

The Commission received the postal article on 16 September 2026—one day late—and refused to accept it.

The petitioner then sought acceptance of the documents and permission to participate in the selection process; the Commission opposed the request because the hard copy arrived after the deadline.

The petitioner relied on postal tracking records and Supreme Court decisions concerning delay in postal delivery.

1. Whether a candidate who dispatched the hard copy of an application and supporting documents within the prescribed time through a mode authorised by the advertisement may be excluded because postal delivery occurred one day after the deadline.

2. Whether the Commission could refuse to accept and consider the petitioner’s documents solely because of that delayed delivery.

The advertisement permitted submission of the hard copy and supporting documents by registered post, speed post, or by hand, and prescribed a deadline for their submission.

The Court applied the principle in Ashutosh Agnihotri v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Another that a candidate who dispatches an application by post within the prescribed period should not be blamed for a subsequent postal delay.

It also relied on Sadaf Imran v. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, W.P. (C) No. 581 of 2023, decided 19 January 2024, which reiterated that principle where timely dispatch was followed by late delivery, and on Rishish Prakash v. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, Allahabad, Writ-A No. 5254 of 2025, decided 28 April 2025, which applied it to a candidate who timely dispatched the hard copy through an authorised mode.

The governing principle was that, where timely dispatch and due diligence are established, postal delay beyond the candidate’s control cannot, by itself, justify exclusion from the selection process.

The Court found that the petitioner completed the online application and fee payment within time and dispatched the hard copy by registered post before the deadline; the advertisement expressly authorised that mode of transmission.

The tracking record showed that the delay arose in postal transit, and the Court found no evidence of negligence or delay by the petitioner.

Applying the cited authorities, it held that refusing the documents solely because they arrived one day late would impose an unjustified consequence for a delay outside the petitioner’s control.

It directed the Commission to accept and take the hard copy and supporting documents on record if presented by 16 October 2026 at 5:00 p.m., and thereafter to consider the petitioner’s candidature under the advertisement and applicable rules without rejecting it merely because of the earlier late delivery.