Chandran Churkkuzheemmala v. Registrar General, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam; Registrar (Recruitment and Computerization), High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN** **TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/9TH PHALGUNA 1933** ## **WP(C).No. 4834 of 2012 (R)** **--------------------------** **PETITIONER(S) : ---------------------** **CHANDRAN CHURKKUZHEEMMAL, (LATE)KELEPPAN, CHURKKZHEEMMAL, KAYAKKODY P.O., KUTTIYADY VIA, CALICUT, KERALA.** **BY ADVS.SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN** ## **RESPONDENT(S) :** **------------------------** **1. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM KOCHI-31.** ## **2. REGISTRAR(RECRUITMENT AND COMPUTERIZATION), HIGH COURT COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **BY SRI. V.R.K. KAIMAL (SR.) SRI. B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **NS** ## **WP(C).No. 4834 of 2012** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :** **EXHIBIT P1 : COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 28/9/2011. EXHIBIT P2 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 11/11/2011. EXHIBIT P3 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24/2/2012.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL** **/ TRUE COPY /** **NA** **P.A. TO JUDGE** ## **K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. -----------------------W.P(C). NO. 4834 OF 2012 ------------------------** Dated this the 28[th] day of February, 2012 **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, who belongs to the Thiyya caste of the Hindu community, submitted an application for selection and appointment to the post of Assistant in the High Court of Kerala pursuant to Ext.P1 notification. While filling up the application form, according to the petitioner, a mistake was committed by the computer operator of which, the petitioner was not aware. While filling up column No.13, which requires the petitioner to state whether he claims relaxation of the upper age limit, he has given the answer 'yes' for the reason that he, being a member of a community under the OBC category, was entitled to such age relaxation. However, while giving answer to the further question in column No.13 it was wrongly typed as “High Court Employee instead of OBC”. In answer to the next question as to whether he was employed he has given the answer as “No”. 2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, it is clear W.P.(C). No. 4834 /2012 2 from the above that the petitioner has not made any wrong statement while filling up the application. Nor has he tried to take any advantage by giving wrong answers to the queries in Ext.P2. Since the petitioner was not issued with a hall ticket for the examination that is scheduled to be conducted on 4/3/2012, he approached the first respondent, whereupon he came to understand that his application had been rejected. According to the counsel, the petitioner is aged 38 years and it is his last opportunity to compete for the selection. The counsel also places reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this court **Shaila E.J. v. The Kerala PSC & Ors (2012 (1) KLJ 434)** wherein it has been held that an eligible candidate should not be denied opportunity to seek employment in Government service based on hyper technical grounds. The counsel for the petitioner, therefore, seeks the indulgence of this court to permit the petitioner to appear for the written examination which is scheduled on 4/3/2012. 3. Senior Advocate Sri.V.R.K.Kaimal who appears for the respondents, on the other hand, points out that the petitioner is over aged as per clause 7 of Ext.P1 notification. Clause 7 (b) W.P.(C). No. 4834 /2012 3 deals with candidates belonging to other backward classes who are entitled to the benefit of age relaxation. As per clause (7)(c) candidates, who are members of the High Court Service working in categories below that of an Assistant, are also entitled to the benefit of age relaxation. Therefore, the wrong answer given in serial N0.13 in Ext.P2 to the effect that the petitioner was a High Court employee should not be viewed lightly. Since the petitioner was not an employee of the High Court, his application has already been rejected. According to the counsel, there are no grounds for permitting the petitioner to take the examination on 4/3/2012. 4. I have heard Sri. Julian Xavier.J. who appears for the petitioner and senior advocate Sri.V.R.K.Kaimal who appears for the respondents. I have also considered the rival contentions anxiously. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is over aged and that his application can be accepted only if age relaxation is granted to him. For the purpose of seeking age relaxation, the petitioner has filled column No.13 by specifying that he was a High Court employee. It does not stand to reason why such an W.P.(C). No. 4834 /2012 4 answer was given instead of filing up the column with the answer 'other backward classes'. The contention that the answer “High Court Employee” was given by a mistake by the computer operator also cannot be accepted for the reason that there is no explanation as to how and in what circumstances, words having absolutely no similarity to each other happened to be typed. No explanation regarding the circumstances under which such mistake was committed is also forthcoming. However, it is worth noticing that though the application Ext.P2 is dated 11/11/2011, it is only after the written test was scheduled to be conducted on 4/3/2012 that the petitioner has woken up to the realisation that a mistake had been committed in filling up his application. By that time the petitioner's application had already been rejected. His representation Ext.P2 is dated 24/2/2012. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision reported in Shaila E.J. v. The Kerala PSC & others(cited supra). That was a case in which an applicant for appointment to the post of High School Assistant in a Government school had submitted an application in a Rs.5 form instead of a Rs.10 Form. The application of the petitioner therein W.P.(C). No. 4834 /2012 5 had been rejected for the reason that her application had been submitted in a form that was meant for scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates. But, the mistake in the present case is much more serious in nature and amounts to furnishing wrong information. As per paragraph 17 of Exhibit P1, candidates have been notified that they “should ensure that the particulars furnished by him/her are correct in all respects”. In case it is detected at any stage of recruitment that he/she had furnished wrong information, his/her candidature will stand cancelled. Candidates have been further informed by paragraph 21 that applications not in accordance with the instructions in the notification would be summarily rejected. Therefore, the candidates had sufficient notice in advance regarding the consequences. The petitioner was thus well aware of the consequences of submitting a defective application. It is long after the rejection of his application that the petitioner has filed this writ petition. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the explanation of the petitioner and to condone the mistake. It is also worth remembering that applications submitted by a number of persons would have been rejected for similar or other W.P.(C). No. 4834 /2012 6 discrepancies. Therefore, there are absolutely no grounds for condoning the mistake committed by the petitioner in the present case. For the forgoing reasons, this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. **Sd/JUDGE** **K.SURENDRA MOHAN,** dpk W.P.(C). No. 4834 /2012 7