District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Civil Station, Palakkad – 678 001, Kerala
Dated this the 30th day of November, 2010
Present: Smt.Seena.H, President
Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member
Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of filing: 24/07/2010
CC. No.94/2010
Abida.K.K
W/o.Mohammed Riyasuddeen
E.K.House
Chethallur.P.O
Palakkad- 678583 - Complainant
(By Party in person)
Vs
1. The Postman
Ottappalam Head Post Office
PIN 679101
2. The Post Master
Ottappalam Head Post Office
PIN 679101
3. The Superintendent of Post Offices
Ottappalam
Ottappalam Head Post Office - Opposite parties
O R D E R
By Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member
The complaint in brief:
The complainant submitted an application for the post of Branch Post Master in Nattukal Branch Post Office before 3rd opposite party on 30/11/09. The vacancy was reserved for OBC and selection is on the basis of marks secured in SSLC examination. The last date for receipt of application was fixed as 30/11/09. Due to the election work, receiptance of Non creamy layer certificate delayed. So on 30/11/09 the complainant explained all these to Assistant Superintendent and she was informed to send the application from the Head Post office which is situated very near to the Postal Superintendent Office. Accordingly on 30/11/09 at 10:07 a.m the complainant sent her application through speed post from the Head post office. But the same reached the destination only on 01/12/09 after prescribed last date. Hence the application was rejected. The letter which is sent through speed post at 10:07 a.m did not reach before 5 p.m on the same day is deficiency of service on the part of postal department. As the selection is made on the basis of mark secured in the SSLC examination, the person who got the job now is less mark secured than the complainant. The deficiency on the part of opposite party lost the complainant a job. So the complainant prays compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- from the opposite parties.
Opposite parties filed version with the following contentions.
The notification for selection of Branch Post Master, Nattukal Post Office was issued by opposite party 3 in Memo No.B3/N15 dt.11/11/09. The last date for receipt of application was fixed as 30/11/09. As per the notification applications had to be submitted through post only. The vacancy was reserved for OBC candidates. The application submitted by the complainant was received by 3rd opposite party on 01/12/09 is after the prescribed date. The same was received through speed post article No.EL62823086 IIN booked at Ottappalam Head Post Office only on 30/11/09. Opposite party also submits that a minimum time frame of one day excluding the day of posting is required for delivery of speed post articles. No speed post article is delivered on the same day under some occasion specific special arrangements are made locally. In this case the complainant did not have any discussion with Ottappalam Head Post Master. The Assistant Superintendent had only made it clear that as per the notification application had to be sent through post and as such the same could not be accepted by hand. The claim of the complainant that had her application been accepted she would have been selected is not correct. The complainant had secured 82.5% marks in the SSLC examination. But Ms.Neethu Krishnan another candidate whose application was also rejected as a belated one had secured 83.8% marks in the SSLC examination. So that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost of opposite parties.
Complainant and opposite parties filed affidavit. Exts.A1 to A3 marked on the side of complainant. Exts.B1 to B7 marked on the side of opposite parties. Heard both parties.
Issues to be considered are;
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the relief and cost?
Issues 1 & 2:
The complaint is regarding the delay occurred in the speed post service due to which the complainant lost an opportunity to get job. The complainant sent an application for the post of Branch Post Master, Nattukal on 30/11/09 by speed post from Ottappalam Head Post Office. As per the notification the last date of accepting application is fixed on 30/11/09. But the application reached in the post office of Superintendent only on 01/12/09. The post is reserved for OBC and the selection is made upon the basis of marks secured in the SSLC examination. The application of the complainant was rejected as belated one. Now the person who got the job is secured less mark than the complainant. If the application of the complainant had been received in time 30/11/09 itself she had been selected for the same. Hence the complainant prays Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation from the opposite parties.
Opposite parties argue that the notification for selection of Branch Post Master was issued by 3rd opposite party in Memo No.B3/N/5 dt.11/11/09. The last date for receipt of application was fixed as 30/11/09. But the application of the complainant was received by 3rd opposite party on 01/12/09 i.e after the prescribed last date through speed post article No.EL6282308611N booked at Ottappalam Head Post Office only on 30/11/09. Complainant says that if the speed post article is delivered on the same day of booking to the nearby situated 3rd opposite party office she would have been selected for the job.
According to Ext.B3 document a minimum time frame of one day excluding the day of posting is required for delivery of speed post articles. No speed post article is delivered on the same day unless occasion specific special arrangements are made locally. From the Ext.B1 document it is clear that copy of the notification is not available with the Post Master, Ottappalam Head Post Office. So the last date of receipt of application at the office of 3rd opposite party is not known to the Post Master, Ottappalam Head Post Office. The complainant herself admitted that she did not have any discussion at the office of booking at the time of booking about the delivery of the article booked by her. If the complainant had approached the Post Master and informed about the importance of the article booked by her, the special arrangements could have been made locally by the Post Master. So we can’t attribute any deficiency on the part of opposite parties.
In the result, complaint dismissed. No order as to cost.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of November, 2010
Sd/-
Smt.Seena.H,
President
Sd/- Smt.Preetha.G.Nair,
Member
Sd/-
Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K,
Member
Appendix
Witnesses examined on the side of complainant
Nil
Witnesses examined on the side of opposite parties
Nil
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 - Speed post receipt dt.30/11/09
Ext.A2 – Copy of Notification for the post of Branch Postmaster
Ext.A3 – Photocopy of SSLC mark list of complainant
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties
Ext.B1 – Copy of Notification for the post of Branch Postmaster
Ext.B2 – Photocopy of application submitted by complainant
Ext.B3 – Photocopy of Office Memorandum dt.08/06/2004
Ext.B4 – Photocopy of letter dt.09/03/2010
Ext.B5 – Photocopy of application submitted by Neethu Krishnan
Ext.B6 – Photocopy of mark list of Neethu Krishnan
Ext.B7 – Photocopy of envelop
Cost (Not allowed)
