2009 (11) TMI 820 - SC - Indian Laws

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 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. - Held that - The application filed by the appellant on the post of Constable Amorer Course is valid

Summary

Issues:
- Consideration of application for the post of Armourer based on the submission of a medical certificate after the prescribed deadline.
- Interpretation of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act regarding computation of time in legal proceedings.
- Application of principles of equity in cases of delayed submission due to holidays.

Analysis:
1. The case involved an appeal against a judgment affirming the dismissal of a writ petition regarding the submission of a medical certificate for the post of Armourer after the prescribed deadline. The appellant's application was rejected due to the delayed submission of the medical certificate, despite submitting educational qualifications on time.

2. The appellant argued that due to holidays, he could only obtain the medical certificate on the next working day and submitted it promptly. The appellant contended that his application should have been considered based on the provisions of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, which allows for acts done on the next working day if the deadline falls on a holiday.

3. The Supreme Court analyzed previous judgments, including the case of (H.H. Raja) Harinder Singh v. S. Karnail Singh, to emphasize the application of Section 10 in legal proceedings. The Court highlighted that the principle of allowing actions on the next working day after a holiday is essential for justice and expediency.

4. Referring to the case of Huda and another v. Dr. Babeswar Kanhar, the Court reiterated the importance of enabling individuals to fulfill obligations on the first subsequent opportunity if prevented from doing so due to circumstances beyond their control. This principle aligns with the doctrine that law should not compel the performance of an impossibility.

5. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the decisions of the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court were not based on sound principles. The Court quashed the previous orders and directed the consideration of the appellant's application for the Constable Armourer Course within a specified timeframe, emphasizing the application of equity and Section 10 of the General Clauses Act.

6. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, with no costs imposed. The judgment highlighted the importance of interpreting legal provisions like Section 10 in a manner that upholds principles of justice and fairness, especially in cases involving delayed submissions due to holidays.