K. Ansari s/o Kamarudeen v. Kerala Public Service Commission, District Co-operative Bank, Ernakulam and Addl.R3

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 29TH BHADRA, 1941** **WA.No.1231 OF 2016** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC 20342/2016 DATED 20-06-2016 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** **K. ANSARI S/O. KAMARUDEEN, AGED 40 YEARS, ANSARI MANZIL, PARAKKULAM, KOTTIYAM P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.SIJU SRI.PRATHEESH.P SMT.RENY ANTO** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 695 033. 2 THE DISTRICT OFFICER KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DISTRICT OFFICE, 3RD FLOOR, EASTERN ENTRY TOWER, ERNAKULAM SOUTH RAILWAY STATION, KARSHAKA ROAD, ERNAKULAM 682 016.** **ADDL.R3 B.OMANAKUTTAN GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, ERNAKULAM.** **IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R3 AS PER ORDER DATED 22/02/2019 IN IA.NO.02/2019)** **R3 BY ADVS. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ SRI.NEBU P.JOSEPH** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WA.No.1231 OF 2016** 2 ## **JUDGMENT** **Dated this the 20th day of September 2019** ## Nagaresh, J This Writ Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment in WP(C)No.20342 of 2016. 2. The writ petitioner is the appellant. The first respondent-Kerala Public Service Commission invited applications for recruitment to the post of General Manager and Deputy General Manager in District Co-operative Bank, Ernakulam. The appellant submitted application for both the posts. The qualifications prescribed by Exts.P1 and P2 notifications were as follows:- ## “ Qualifications: 1. Master Degree in Business Administration or any other equivalent qualification recognized by the Universities in the State ## OR Membership in the Institute of Chartered Accountant of India 2. Experience of not less than 3 ywars in Managerial / **WA.No.1231 OF 2016** 3 Supervisory Cadre in Co-operative Institutions – Scheduled Banks/Government/Quasi Government Institutions / Public Limited Companies. (The experience prescribed as qualification shall be one gained by the candidate after acquiring the basic qualifications prescribed for the post and should be received before the last date fixed for the receipt of application.” 3. Exts.P1 and P2 required the applicants to produce certificate in proof of experience containing certain details. The appellant submits that he has made application in tune with Exts.P1 and P2. Subsequently, as per Ext.P6 the applicant was informed by the second respondent that his application for appointment to the post of Deputy General Manager has been rejected for the reason that the experience certificate produced by the appellant is not in accordance with the requirements mentioned in the notification. The appellant submits that he obtained Ext.P7 information after making application under the RTI Act and as per the said information it is learnt that his application for appointment to the post of General Manager was also **WA.No.1231 OF 2016** 4 rejected on the same ground. Aggrieved by Exts.P6 and P7, the appellant filed the writ petition and sought to declare that the rejection of appellant's applications for the post of General Manager and Deputy General Manager is illegal. 4. Respondents 1 and 2 contested the writ petition filing counter affidavit. The second respondent in his counter affidavit stated that though the appellant stated that he worked in two companies in Cochin, the experience certificates are seen countersigned by the Assistant Labour Officer, Karunagappally and counter signed by the District Labour Officer, Kollam. Therefore, experience certificates were not in the prescribed format inasmuch as they are not duly signed by the competent authority. In the counter affidavit it has been further stated, the experience possessed by the appellant does not satisfy the experience requirements under the Rules. Considering the nature of duties and functions of the Deputy General Manager in a large bank like District Co-operative Bank, the qualification and experience possessed by the appellant are not sufficient **WA.No.1231 OF 2016** 5 for the post. 5. After considering the rival contentions of the appellant and the respondents, the learned Single Judge observed that though there is no stipulation as regards requirement of a declaration in the experience certificate, in Ext.P2 notification it has been stated that detailed instructions regarding the submission of application are available in the Website of Kerala Public Service Commission. Taking into account the said stipulation the appellant ought to have made a declaration countersigned by the respective statutory authority. The learned Single Judge found that every applicant is to submit the application after understanding the instructions contained in the Website of the first respondent and if the petitioner had done so, he could have submitted a proper application by incorporating the declaration. The Public Service Commission is a body handling thousands of applications and is not expected to verify the aspects in a threadbare manner and it is for that reason a declaration was made mandatory enabling it to **WA.No.1231 OF 2016** 6 process the applications relying on such declarations. On these premises, the learned single Judge held that the exeperience certificates, Exts.P4, P5 and P5(a) produced by the appellant are not as stipulated by the first respondent and therefore, Ext.P6 communication does not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness warranting interference by this Court. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and the elarned counsel appearing for the additional third respondent in the writ appeal. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that rejection of the application submitted by the appellant was without appreciating the fact that the exeperience certificate produced by him is in full conformity with the format prescribed in Exts.P1 and P2 notification. The appellant has three years experience in Supervisory/Managerial Cadre in a Public Limited Company and that too in a financial sector. Therefore, respodnents 1 and 2 ought not to have rejected **WA.No.1231 OF 2016** 7 his application. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the appellant had experience as he worked in Karunagappally and Kollam and it is for that reason the District Labour Officer and Assistant Labour Officer of that area signed and counter signed the experience certificates. The first respondent unnecessarily presumed that the experience was gained by appellant while he worked in Ernakulam. The learned counsel for the appellant further argued that since there is a specific format in the notification itself the appellant cannot be found fault in submitting the experience certificate as per format. 8. Exts.P1 and P2 give the format of the exeperience certificate. But, in the notification it has been stated that all detailed instructions regarding the submission of applications are available in the Website of the PSC. Therefore, applicants are expected to read the detailed instructions published by the PSC and act accordingly. In Clause 12 of Ext.P1 notification it has been specifically stated that for details candidates have to see the general conditions given **WA.No.1231 OF 2016** 8 by the PSC. The instructions of the PSC require the applicants to submit a declaration as to the experience certificate gained by the applicants. It was in the absence of declaration as required by the general conditions that the applications of the appellant were rejected. Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the findings of the learned single Judge to that effect. 9. A perusal of impugned Exts.P6 and P7 orders of respondents 1 and 2 would show that the applications submitted by the appellant were rejected on the ground that the experience certificates submitted by the appellant are not in accordance with the requirements in the notification. A perusal of the conditions prescribed in Exts.P1 and P2 as regards the certificate to be produced in proof of exeperience by the candidates would show that the exeperience certificate should contain registration number and date of registration etc., of the Firm/ Company/ Government Department/ Co-operative Institutions in which the applicants have worked and gained experience. Ext.P4 certificate **WA.No.1231 OF 2016** 9 produced by the appellant would show that the said certificate does not contain either the registration number or the date of registration of the establishment as required by Exts.P1 and P2. 10. It may be noted that in the counter affidavit filed by respondent 1 and 2 it has been stated that the appellant has gained exeperience while he worked in Ernakulam, whereas the certificates are seen attested by Labour Officers of Kollam District. This is specifically disputed by the appellant who submits that he has worked in Karunagappally in Kollam only and the first respondent need not have erroneously presumed that he worked in Ernakulam. Going through Exts.P4 and P5, we find that particulars regarding the place in which the appellant has worked and gained experience is absent in Exts.P4 and P5. In otherwords, there is nothing in Exts.P4 and P5, which would show that he has worked in Karunagappally in Kollam. This Court in the judgment in **Kerala Public service Commission v. Sony** [2016(1) KLT 293] has held that it is only if an experience **WA.No.1231 OF 2016** 10 certificate in the proforma prescribed by the Commission is submitted that the Commission can ascertain whether the certificate is bogus or not and take action against the erring candidate/officer. In the said judgment this Court found that non-submission of the particulars in the prescribed form would vitiate the application. 11. For all the above reasons we find that the action of respondents 1 and 2 in rejecting the application submitted by the appellant is justified and there is no illegality or irregularity involved in the matter. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. ## Accordingly, this writ appeal stands dismissed. **Sd/C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE Sd/N.NAGARESH, JUDGE** dlk/20.09.19