Potluri Anjali v. State of Andhra Pradesh
(2022) 2 ALT 330
In the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Writ Appeal 812/ 2021
Before Chief Justice Prahant K. Mishra and Justice M. S. Murthy
Decided on January 28, 2022

Relevancy of the case: Responsibility of an authority to communicate about the recruitment process through SMS and ensure their delivery

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 2, 12)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The petitioner-appellant could not submit a sub-caste certificate on time as she did not receive an SMS containing this information from the respondent’s IT cell.
• Unable to submit the required documentation, she lost her Secondary Grade Teacher (SGT) candidature. The position went to the next eligible candidate per the provisional list’s norms.
• The IT cell had sent 11 SMS and was aware of an error in the communication.
• The trial court dismissed the writ petition to place her name on the fresh provisional list. Hence, she has filed this appeal before the High Court.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The petitioner-appellant’s counsel argued that failure to obtain SMS was not her fault. The respondents were negligent in communicating, which cost the appellant her employment opportunity. He submitted that non-submission of documents should not deprive her of employment opportunity when she had better scores.
• The respondents’ counsel submitted that they had clearly communicated the requirement for a working phone number for the entire recruitment process. The court should dismiss this writ petition as there is no discrepancy in the recruitment process. The IT department did its job by sending the messages. It is not liable for the non-delivery of messages to the petitioner-appellant.
• The respondent’s counsel also contends that the IT department did its job by sending the SMS and is not liable for the message not reaching the petitioner.

Opinion of the Bench

• Information sent through SMS is an electronic record under Section 2(t) of the IT Act, 2000.
• The respondents were obliged to notify the appellant about sending the electronic record under Section 12(3) of the IT Act, 2000.

Final Decision

• Failure to submit the document for lack of information was not negligence by the petitioner.
• The court directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner-appellant as SGT from the date of the rest of the appointments.

Ojasvi Gupta, an undergraduate student at the Faculty of Law, Banaras Hindu University, prepared this case summary during her internship with The Cyber Blog India in May/June 2022.