Two Deadlines in One Notice

The Nepali text governs, and the 137 applications must be admitted for processing.

Reasons

1. Legal. Nepali in Devanagari is the language of official business, so where the two texts of an office's own notice diverge, the Nepali text is the authoritative one. The English line was a convenience, not the operative command.
2. Interpretive. The ambiguity was created by the office, not the applicants. Ambiguity in a document drafted by the issuing authority is read against the drafter, and a citizen cannot be penalised for a contradiction the office failed to catch before publication.
3. Fairness and legitimate expectation. A published notice creates an expectation that it will be applied as reasonably read. Refusing an applicant who acted within one of the two stated deadlines, and who has a dated token to prove it, is arbitrary treatment - the kind of decision that is easily set aside.
4. Practical exposure. Forty written complaints, a media story and at least one documented refusal make this a matter that will reach the ministry or the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority if handled defensively.

Action

• Issue a written order the same day admitting applications received up to Magh 15 and directing staff to accept the 137 with proper darta entry.
• Because 356 + 137 exceeds the quota of 400, do not fall back on first-come-first-served, which would reward those who queued early. Adopt and publish a transparent selection rule - a public lottery among all eligible applicants, with ward and category representation if the scheme requires it - before any list is issued.
• Record the decision, the reason and the selection method in the file and in the complaints register, with a written reply to the 40 complainants.

Draft (to appear identically in both languages, side by side)

Office of the ……………, District …………… Corrigendum to Notice No. ……… dated ……… (published on ………)

1. In the notice cited above, the deadline for submission of applications is clarified as माघ १५ गते, बिहान ११:०० बजे (28 January 20……, 11:00 a.m.). The two texts of the original notice carried different dates; the Nepali text, being the official language of the notice, is authoritative.
2. Applications received up to the deadline stated in paragraph 1 are valid and will be processed. Applications returned earlier by this office on the basis of the English text are hereby treated as timely and are admitted.
3. Since valid applications exceed the 400 units available, selection will be made by public lottery among eligible applicants on ……… at ……… in the presence of the applicants or their representatives. The lottery procedure is annexed.
4. All other terms of the original notice remain unchanged.

Date: …………… Signature, name, designation and office seal of the issuing authority.

How it must be issued

• Both language versions published at the same time, on the same date, in the same places: the office notice board, the website, all ward offices in the catchment, and the FM station that carried the story.
• The BS date must come first, with the AD equivalent in brackets and the day of the week, so the mistake cannot recur in reverse.
• Serial-numbered copies to every applicant who has already filed, and a press note from the office rather than a rebuttal to the reporter - the office's error is being corrected, and the tone should say so plainly.
• Entry in the notices register with the signature of the officer who approved the text.

The failure was systemic, not personal: a single clerk drafted both texts, no one reconciled the dates, and the counter staff had no authoritative version to work from.

Controls I would introduce

1. Single date authority. Every notice states the date in BS first, with the AD equivalent in brackets and the weekday, drawn from one conversion sheet that is attached to the file. No notice carries two independent date values that can drift apart.
2. Two-officer verification with sign-off. The drafting officer and a second officer certify the Nepali and English texts against each other line by line, using a one-page checklist (dates, times, place, fee, contact, eligibility). The checklist is filed with the notice.
3. Publication matrix. A standard list of where and when a notice must appear - notice board, website, ward offices, local radio - with the date and time of each posting recorded. The failure to post at ward offices was part of why the contradiction went unnoticed for two weeks.
4. Receipt discipline. Every application is entered in the darta register the moment it is received and the applicant is given a serial-numbered token with the date and time. The 137 refusals became a dispute mainly because the counter produced no record.
5. Version control. A notice register holding the approved master copy and every subsequent corrigendum, so that staff at the counter cannot work from an obsolete printout.
6. Complaint loop. A complaints register with a named officer and a response deadline, and a monthly review of the three most common complaints in the office meeting - this case would have surfaced in week one.

Training note: the counter staff were not the problem; they were asked to apply two instructions and chose one. The remedy is an unambiguous instruction, in writing, before the next notice goes out.