JANI.A v. HIGH COURT OF KERALA, STATE OF KERALA, THE REGISTRAR RECRUITMENT AND COMPUTERISATION HIGH COURT OF KERALA, AYOOBKHAN E.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/19TH MAGHA, 1937 ## W.A.No. 35 of 2016 IN WP(C).14281/2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 14281/2015 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 04-11-2015 ## APPELLANT/APPELLANT: JANI.A, NO.16, DWADASI NAGAR, THEVALLY P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADVS.SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR SRI.JELSON J.EDAMPADAM SRI.JELSON J.EDAMPADAM ## RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1. HIGH COURT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE REGISTRAR RECRUITMENT AND COMPUTERISATION HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 4. AYOOBKHAN E. EDATHARA, PATHIRICKAL, PATHANAPURAM KOLLAM DISTRICT. R4 BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.) R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) R4 BY ADV. SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR R4 BY ADV. SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR R1 & 3 BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. R BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SOJAN JAMES THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **ANTONY DOMINIC & ANU SIVARAMAN, JJ.** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Writ Appeal No.35 of 2016** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8[th] day of February, 2016** ## **JUDGMENT** ## _**Antony Dominic, J.**_ This writ appeal has been filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.14281/15, who is aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. In the writ petition, his grievance was that though he had applied in response to vacancy Notification No.10/2014 issued by the first respondent for appointment to the post of District and Sessions Judge, the benefit of reservation was denied to him and that since he was treated as a general candidate he lost the opportunity to get selected and appointed. 2. We heard the counsel for the appellant, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 3 and the Government Pleader appearing for the 2[nd] respondent. 3. Exts.P1 to P4 are notification Nos.7/2014 to 10/2014 issued by the first respondent for appointment to the post of District and Sessions Judge. Against Ext.P4 vacancy notification, No.10/14, the appellant had Writ Appeal No.35 of 2016 : 2 : submitted his application. In the written test that was conducted, the appellant secured 8[th] rank. He also participated in the interview. According to him, though he was entitled to be considered in the reserved category of OBC - Muslim, wrongly treating him as a general candidate, he was assigned 34[th] rank in the select list. He made a representation to the third respondent complaining of the above and that was rejected by Ext.P11 communication informing him that since he had not claimed reservation for appointment in the application, his claim for reservation cannot be entertained. It was in these circumstances, the writ petition was filed. 4. Before the learned Single Judge, a statement was filed by respondents 1 and 3, in which they asserted that the appellant had not claimed the benefit of reservation in the application made by him and that it was, therefore, that he was treated as a general candidate. In paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the statement, it was stated thus: _“5. As per online application form, a candidate had to indicate the category to which he belongs i.e.General/OBC/SC/ST. The online application form is a dynamic one and only if the candidate indicates that he belongs to OBC/SC/ST, the relevant columns for filling the caste details and for claiming reservation of appointment_ Writ Appeal No.35 of 2016 : 3 : _will be available. The petitioner submitted his online application as a general candidate and no reservation of appointment is available to general category candidates. As reservation is not available to general category candidates, the system won't ask for the communal details of the candidate. In order to avail the benefit of reservation, the candidate had to opt the category of OBC/SC/ST as the case may be instead of General category._ _6. As per clause 13 of the notification, it has been mentioned that 'anything not specifically claimed in the application against the appropriate field will not be considered at a later stage'. Therefore, specific claim not made in the application cannot be considered at a later stage. Above all, it is a well settled law that a claim not made in the application cannot be entertained subsequently._ _7. The petitioner being a general candidate as per his application, his communal status need not be verified. His non-creamy layer certificate was not accepted at the time of verification of documents in connection with the viva-voce as he was a general candidate and claim made subsequent to the submission of application could not be entertained. The District Judges' Recruitment Committee in its meeting dated 1.4.2015 considered the representation submitted by the petitioner and resolved that the representation be rejected since the candidate failed to claim the benefit of reservation of appointment in the application against the appropriate field and claim made subsequent to the submission of application cannot be entertained.”_ 5. These assertions made in the statement were denied by the appellant by filing reply affidavit. After hearing the counsel for the Writ Appeal No.35 of 2016 : 4 : parties and also going through the pleadings and the application submitted by the appellant, which was made available to him, the learned Single Judge accepted the contention of respondents 1 and 3 and dismissed the writ petition. It is aggrieved by this judgment, the appeal is filed. 6. Before us also, submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant was that in the online application that was provided, there was no column enabling the appellant to claim the benefit of reservation that he was entitled to, the appellant being a Muslim. According to him, it was, therefore, that he claimed the benefit of reservation at the time of certificate verification that preceded the interview for the post. However, this submission made by the counsel was refuted by the counsel for respondents 1 and 3, who not only referred us to the statement filed before this court but also made available to us copies of the applications submitted by the appellant, the fourth respondent and also another candidate who also is a Muslim. From the statement filed before this court, it is evident that a candidate has to indicate the category to which he belongs i.e. Writ Appeal No.35 of 2016 : 5 : General/OBC/SC/ST and that the online application form being a dynamic one, only if the candidate indicate the category to which he belongs, the relevant columns for filling the caste details and for claiming reservation for appointment will be available. Copy of the application submitted by the appellant is Ext.P5. In Ext.P5, under the column 'personal information' and against the entry 'category', the appellant has described himself as a 'general' candidate. This precisely is the reason why the other entries like religion and caste/community which immediately follow the entry regarding 'category' were not available to the appellant. Similarly, it was because of the aforesaid claim that under the column 'reservation of appointment', the question “do you claim the benefit of reservation of appointment in favour of SC/ST/non-creamy layer of OBC?” was also not available. 7. From the application submitted by the another candidate by name Nazarudeen.E., who also responded to Notification No.10/2014, we find that he had declared himself as an OBC candidate and, therefore, the aforesaid further columns are also available in the application submitted by him and he had furnished the necessary Writ Appeal No.35 of 2016 : 6 : details which enabled him to claim the benefit of reservation. Insofar as the application submitted by the fourth respondent, which is heavily relied on by the appellant to contend that the aforesaid particulars were not available, we have gone through the application submitted by him and we find that he had responded to Notification Nos.9/14 and 10/14. Vacancy notification in 9/14 was for filling up NCA vacancies reserved for Muslim/SC converted Christians and Ezhava. Since the vacancy Notification No.9/14 itself was for reserved candidates and the application being a common one, it was not necessary to furnish more details that the candidate admitted by is an OBC, Ezhava and Muslim candidate. Therefore, the application submitted by the fourth respondent could not be relied by the appellant for any purpose. 8. Obviously, therefore, the appellant had not claimed reservation in the application submitted by him, despite the availability of relevant columns which enabled him to furnish the details. Once the applicant has submitted his application as a general candidate, he cannot subsequently claim the benefit of reservation and law is settled that the conditions of the notification and the application requiring such Writ Appeal No.35 of 2016 : 7 : information are mandatory. This has been laid down by the Division Bench of this court in _Kerala Public Service Commission v. Varghese and others [ILR 1977 (1) Kerala 523] and Kerala Public Service Commission v. Saroja Nambiar [ILR 1978 (2) Kerala 41]._ 9. The facts being as above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant. Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. _SD/-_ **ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE** _SD/-_ **ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE** _jes_