LexMOHD. AYUB versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1095
MOHD. AYUB
A
v.
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 8200 of 2009)
NOVEMBER 20, 2009
[G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.].
B
General Clauses Act, 1897 - s. 10 - Computation of time
- Gazetted holiday on the last date of submitting application
"'
for the post alongwith medical certificate - Submission of
application on the last date, however medical certificate on c
the next day - Non-consideration of application - Correctness
of -
Held: Party prevent~d from dojng an act by some
circumstances beyond his control can do so at the first
subsequent opportunity - Object is to enable a person to do
what he could have done on a holiday on the next working D
day - Candidate could not obtain medical certificate since last
,)
day was a Gazetted holiday and previous days were also
holidays - He obtained medical certificate the next day and
submitted it on that day itself - Hence1 application to be
considered in view of s. 10 and the principle of equity - Equity.
E
For the post of Armourer, the last date of submitting
the application along with the medical certificate was
14.04.2003 Appellant submitted his application for the said
post on 14.04.2003 but the medical certificate was
}
submitted on 15.04.2003. Appellant's application was not F
considered. He filed a writ petition. He stated that
14.04.2003 was a gazetted holiday and previous days were
also holidays and as such he could not get the medical
certificate by 14.04.2003. Single Judge of High Court
dismissed the petition. Division Bench of High Court G
upheld the same. Hence the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
).
HELD: 1:There is a general principle that a party,
1095
H
1096 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (AODL.) S.C.R.
A
prevented from doing an act for some i"easons beyond his
control, can do so at the first subsequent opportunity. The
underlying object of s.1 O of the General Clauses Act, 1897
is to enable a person to do what he should have done in a
holiday, on the next working day. The said principle is
B based on doctr.ine that law does not compel the
.,.
performance of an impossibility. [Para 15] (1101-B-D]
Huda and another v. Dr. Babeswar Kanhar and another
(2005) 1 sec 191 - relied on.
I
"'
c
{H.H. Raja) Harinder Singh v. S. Kamai/ Singh and others
AIR 1957 SC 271; Ghaganti Satyanarayana and others v. State
of Andhra Pradesh (1986) 3 SCC 141; N. Sureya Reddy v.
State of Orissa 1985 Cri LJ 939 (Ori); Hossain Ally v. Donzelle
ILR (1880) 5 Cal 906, referred to.
D
2.1. The last date of submitting the application along
with medical certificate was 14th of April, 2003, which was
a gazetted holiday on account of Ambedkar Jayanti. The
"·
application of the applicant was incomplete only because
it did not contain the medical certificate. The explanation
E of the appellant is that in view of the 14th April being a
holiday and the previous days were also holidays, he
could not obtain the medical certificate and he obtained it
on the very next day i.e. 15th April and submitted it on that
day itself. In these circumstances, his application should
F
have been considered on merit in view of the principles
'
laid down ins. 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. [Paras
9 and ,10] [1100-A-C]
2.2. Both the Single Judge and the Appellate '3ench
ofthe High Court failed to take into consideration the
G provision of s. 10 of the Act and the principles of equity
which are embodied in the said provision. The decisions
of the Single Judge and that of the Division Bench of the
High Court are not· based ori sound principles. The order
of the Single Bench and Division Bench is quashed as
H also the order dated 02.07.2003 passed by the respondent
.
MOHD. AYUB v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
1097
No.3-DIG, PAC Barriely section. The application filed by the
A
..._
appellant on the post of Constable Amorer Course is valid
and should be considered as valid and the respondents
are directed to take steps on the same in accordance with
law. (Paras 7, 16 and 17] [1099-D; 1101-E-G]
Case Law Reference:
B
AIR 1957 SC 271
Referred to.
Para 11
"'
(1986) 3 sec 141
Referred to.
Para 13
1985 Cri LJ 939
Referred to.
Para 14
(2005) 1 sec 191
Relied on.
Para 15
c
ILR (1880) 5 Cal 906
Referred to.
Para 15
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8200
of 2009.
From the Judgment & Order dated 9.9.2008 of the High
D
J
Court of Judicature at AExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.