K. Ansari v. Kerala Public Service Commission

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/30TH JYAISHTA, 1938** ## **WP(C).No. 20342 of 2016 (P)** **--------------------------------------------** **PETITIONER(S) :** **--------------------------** **K.ANSARI, S/O. KAMARUDEEN, AGED 40 YEARS, ANSARI MANZIL, PARAKKULAM, KOTTIYAM P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.SIJU SRI.S.ABHILASH SMT.RENY ANTO** **RESPONDENT(S) :** **----------------------------** **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.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, S.C** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** Msd. **,** **WP(C).No. 20342 of 2016 (P)** **------------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :** - **P1 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED 30-04-2012 IN CATEGORY NO. 128/2012.** - **P2 THE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED 31-12-2010 IN CATEGORY NO. 471/2010.** - **P3 TRUE COPY OF MBA DEGREE CERTIFICATE DATED 01-04-2009 FROM UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.** - **P4 TRUE COPY OF EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM KARVY STOCK BROKING LTD., COUNTER SIGNED BY DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, KOLLAM.** - **P5 THE COPY OF EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE DATED 18-08-2010 ISSUED FROM THE MUTHOOT SECURITIES LTD.** - **P5(A) THE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 23-11-2010 ISSUED FROM THE MUTHOOT SECURITIES LTD.** - **P6 THE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12-05-2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **P7 THE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 09-03-2016 REGARDING THE REJECTION OF APPLICATION FOR THE POST OF GENERAL MANAGER ISSUED UNDER RT ACT.** - **P8 THE COPY OF SHORT LIST PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 10-12-2015 PERTAINING TO THE SELECTION OF GENERAL MANAGER IN DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK.** - **P9 THE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P(C).NO. 3917/2011 DATED 08-04-2011.** - **P10 THE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P(C).NO. 3917/2011 AND THE CONNECTED CASE DATED 19-11-2013.** - **P11 THE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 12-06-2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT REGARDING ACCEPTANCE OF PETITIONERS QUALIFICATION AND EXPERIENCE FOR THE POST OF CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER-KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK.** - **P12 THE COPY OF RANKED LIST PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 14-09-2015 FOR THE POST OF CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK.** - **P13 THE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES FROM THE WEBSITE OF KARVY STOCK BROKING LTD.** ## **WP(C).No. 20342 of 2016 (P)** ## **------------------------------------------** - **P14 THE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES FROM THE WEBSITE OF MUTHOOT SECURITIES LTD.** - **P15 THE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST REGARDING THE SELECTION TO THE POST OF GENERAL MANAGER IN DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KOLLAM AND THE COPY OF EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE.** - **P16 THE COPY OF RANKED LIST AND THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE PERTAINING TO MR. PRICE GEORGE, DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, DCB KOTTAYAM.** - **P17 THE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P(C).NO. 24536/2011 DATED 21.08.2012. P18 THE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO. 1664/2012 DATED 22.02.2013. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :** ## **NIL** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.S.TO JUDGE.** Msd. ## **SHAJI P. CHALY, J.** ----------------------------------------------- ## **W.P.(C). No. 20342 of 2016** **-----------------------------------------------** Dated this the 20[th] day of June, 2016 ## **JUDGMENT** This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext.P6 communication issued by the first respondent rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner for appointment to category No. 470/2010 for want of proper experience certificate and for other related reliefs. 2. Brief facts for the disposal of the writ petition are thus:- Petitioner has submitted application to the post of Deputy General Manager and General Manager in the District Cooperative Bank, Ernakulam based on Exts.P1 and P2 notifications. Petitioner has produced Exts.P4, P5 and P5 (a) Experience certificates to prove his work experience in managerial cadre in a public limited Company, that too in financial sector. W.P.(C). No. 20342 of 2016 2 3. According to the petitioner, as per Rule 186 (1B) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') the qualification for the post of General Manager and Deputy General Manager are Master's Degree in Business Administration or any other equivalent qualification recognized by the universities in the State or Membership of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, with experience of not less than 3 years in managerial or supervisory cadre in Co-operative institutions/Schedules Banks/ Government/ Quasi Government Institutions/ Public Limited Companies. The first respondent has stipulated the same qualification for selection as per Exts.P1 and P2. 4. After verification of records, second respondent rejected the application of the petitioner by Ext.P6 communication, pertaining to the post of Deputy General Manager. Application for the post of General manager was also rejected without any communication on the same W.P.(C). No. 20342 of 2016 3 ground. 5. It is the contention of the petitioner that, petitioner has produced Exts.P4, P5 and P5(a) certificates counter signed by the labour officer to show his experience in a public limited company in establish cadre. According to the petitioner, same set of applications were submitted earlier for the selection to the post of Chief General Manager in kerala State Co-operative Bank and the Public Service Commission had admitted the same and petitioner was included in the rank list. It is also the contention of the petitioner that, in an earlier writ petition filed before this Court, these documents were prima facie found to be satisfying the requirements of experience, evident from Ext.P9 interim order and thereby petitioner was permitted to participate in the selection process. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioner that, rejection of his application is against Rules 186(1B) of the Rules and, therefore, arbitrary and illegal. It is in this W.P.(C). No. 20342 of 2016 4 background this writ petition is filed by the petitioner. 6. Respondents have filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations and statements contained in the writ petition. 7. The crux of the contention advanced by the respondents is that, the experience certificates produced by the petitioner, evident from Exts.P4, P5 and P5(a) are not sustainable documents. It is contended that, experience certificates are to be preferred as per the form prescribed by the first respondent in which a declaration is required as provided thereunder. 8. According to the learned standing counsel for the first respondent, experience certificates produced by the petitioner would show that, there is no declaration as contemplated under law. More over, it is contended that, even though, the experience certificates are counter signed by the concerned labour officers at Karunagappally and Kollam, certificates are issued by the companies at W.P.(C). No. 20342 of 2016 5 Ernakulam. 9. Therefore, it is contention of the learned standing counsel that , concerned labour officers did not have any opportunity at all to verify the service records of the petitioner in order to counter sign the experience certificates. Therefore, the genuineness of the said certificates are suspicious and doubtful. 10. Learned counsel has invited my attention to the judgments rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in **District Co-operative Bank, Palakkad v. Dinesh.M and others** [2012(3) KHC 627] and **Kerala Public Service Commission v Sony** [2016(1) KLT 293] in order to canvass the proposition that, the experience certificate is to be provided in a format prescribed by the first respondent. True, the relevant details are contained in the experience certificate produced by the petitioner. However, there is no declaration made by the concerned labour authorities. W.P.(C). No. 20342 of 2016 6 11. Therefore, according to the counsel, the same is a mandatory requirement and since the experience certificates produced by the petitioners are not having the declaration, the same cannot be treated as a valid application for further scrutiny. Learned counsel has invited my attention to various paragraphs of the judgments referred to above. In which I find that Division Bench has entered into a categoric finding that if an experience certificate in the proforma prescribed by the Commission is submitted, only the Commission can ascertain whether the certificate is bogus or not and take action against the erring candidate/officer. That apart it is also held that the Commission cannot, in the absence of records, conduct a roving enquiry for the purpose of deciding whether the countersigning officer has countersigned the experience certificate after being satisfied about the genuineness of the certificate issued by the employer to the employee or that the applicant has W.P.(C). No. 20342 of 2016 7 the requisite experience. 12. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondents and perused the pleadings and documents on record. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel have reiterated the contentions raised in the writ petition. 14. The question to be considered is whether rejection of petitioner's application as per Ext.P6 communication suffers from any vice of arbitrariness or illegality warranting interference of this Court. 15. The submission of the application by the petitioner as well as production of experience certificates are not in dispute. Ext.P6 communication shows that, the application submitted by the petitioner was rejected since the experience is not in accordance with the requirements as per Exts.P1 and P2 notifications. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended W.P.(C). No. 20342 of 2016 8 that, the experience certificates produced by the petitioner are in terms of notifications issued by the first respondent for submission of applications. More over, it is the contention of the petitioner that, petitioner has sufficient work experience in financial institutions, who have issued Exts. P4, P5 and P5(a) experience certificates. Therefore, the requirement of experience is in terms of the notifications and it was not proper on the part of the respondents to reject the application of the petitioner. 17. Petitioner has also a contention that, in similar circumstances, petitioner was permitted to participate in the interview as per Ext.P9 interim order passed by this Court and, later, the writ petition was closed since there was no vacancy available to accommodate the petitioner. It is the further contention that, Ext. P17 judgment of a learned Single Judge and Ext.P18 judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, are on similar terms and was held that, the experience shown from financial institutions are W.P.(C). No. 20342 of 2016 9 sufficient enough to count the experience gained by the applicants. 18. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents submitted that, even though, assuming that, petitioner has sufficient experience as per the notifications inviting applications, the same would have been submitted by the petitioner as per the proforma provided. According to the learned counsel, in order to have a proper experience certificate, a declaration of the authority counter signing the same is required. Therefore, it is contended that, even though, Exts.P4, P5 and P5(a) are signed by the labour authorities, there is no declaration as contemplated under law. 19. That apart it is also contended that, the authorities who have counter signed the experience certificates are authorities at Kollam and karunagappally but the certificates are issued at Ernakulam. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted W.P.(C). No. 20342 of 2016 10 that, petitioner has worked as Branch in charge in both the organizations and, therefore, the necessary details with respect to his experience was available at Karunagappally and Kollam enabling the respective labour authorities to countersign the certificates. Certificates happened to be issued from Ernakulam since both companies have their head office at Ernakulam. However, with respect to the absence of declaration in Exts.P4, P5 and P5(a) experience certificates, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that, in Exts.P1 and P2 notifications even though the format is prescribed, the declaration part is not available therefore, the counsel contends that, the declaration is not a mandatory requirement under law in order to accept the application submitted by the petitioner. 21. True, on a reading of Exts.P2 and P3 I do not find any stipulation with respect to declaration. But, however, learned standing counsel has invited my W.P.(C). No. 20342 of 2016 11 attention to Ext.P2 notification wherein it is stated that “all detailed instructions regarding the submission of application are available in website of the Kerala Public Service Commission”. Taking into account the said stipulation contained under Ext.P2 and the judgment rendered by this Court cited (supra), application without a declaration counter signed by respective statutory authority is not an acceptable document, is the contention of the standing counsel. I find force in the contention of the learned standing counsel that every applicant is to submit the application after understanding the instructions 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. More over, I find that the Public Service Commission, a body handling 1000 and 1000 of applications is not expected to verify the aspects in a threadbare manner and it is for that reason only the declaration is made mandatory enabling it W.P.(C). No. 20342 of 2016 12 to process the application relying on the said declaration counter signed by the respective statutory authority. 22. Admittedly, experience certificates, Exts. P4, P5 and P5(a) are not in accordance with the stipulations of the first respondent and therefore, I do not think that, Ext.P6 communication suffers from any illegality or arbitrariness warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Resultantly, writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. Sd/- **SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE** dlk/21/6/