Nila Devi K N v. Secretary, Kerala Public Service Commission; Director, Department of Collegiate Education; Sri P. C. Sasidharan, Standing Counsel, PSC

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 17TH MAGHA, 1940** ## **OP(KAT).No.28 of 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29-10-2018 IN OA (EKM) 2754/2017 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL** **PETITIONER:** **NILA DEVI K N, AGED 41 YEARS D/O SRI.K.NARAYANAN, NO 85,THOTTAPALLY P.O. AMBLAPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA-688563** **BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEW JAMES SMT.A.M.FOUSI** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.** **2 DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.** **SRI. P.C.SASIDHARAN, STANDING COUNSEL, PSC** **THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **O.P.(KAT).28/2019** 2 ## **JUDGMENT** Ravikumar, J. This original petition is directed against order dated 29.10.2018 passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A.(EKM) No.2754 of 2017. The unsuccessful applicant therein is the petitioner. She responded to a notification issued by the Public Service Commission (PSC) for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Zoology in the Collegiate Education Department. After conclusion of the selection process, Annexure A5 ranked list was brought into force with effect from 31.7.2017. The name of the petitioner figures at Rank No.26 therein. The original application has been filed seeking the following reliefs:- - i) To direct the 1[st] respondent to grant the due weightage mark available to the applicant for her NET and Ph.D qualifications; - ii) To direct the 1[st] respondent to consider and orders on Annexure A6 pass - representation within a time frame as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Tribunal in the interest of justice. **O.P.(KAT).28/2019** 3 - iii) To direct the 1[st] respondent to modify Annexure A5 ranked list after giving due weightage of 4 marks to the applicant, till then Annexure A5 may be kept in abeyance. 2. It is obvious from the pleadings and the prayers made in the original application that the petitioner/applicant is aggrieved by the denial of weightage marks for the non-qualifying degree possessed by her viz., Ph.D. The contention of the petitioner is that if she is granted 4 marks weightage for Ph.D, she will be placed below Rank No.16 in Annexure A5. In such eventuality, it will augment her prospects for getting appointment, it was contended. 3. The first respondent has filed a reply statement. It is stated therein that the last date for receipt of application, going by the notification, was 2.01.2013 and the applicant had applied for the post on 17.12.2012. She had participated in the OMR test and was included in the main list of short list published on 12.2.2016. The applicant had participated in the interview and at the time of certificate verification, it was found that though the applicant **O.P.(KAT).28/2019** 4 possessed NET qualification as well as Ph.D, she had not claimed NET qualification while submitting the application on 17.12.2012. Admittedly, she had entered her NET qualification in her profile much after the last date fixed for receipt of application, to be precise, only on 6.4.2016. Since the the NET qualification was claimed only subsequent to the receipt of application, the petitioner is not entitled to get weightage marks for non-qualifying examination, it is contended. 4. The Tribunal considered the rival contentions and ultimately held that since the ranked list was published with effect from 31.7.2017 and advices were also issued from Annexure A5 ranked list, any interference would adversely affect the advised candidates besides it would set a bad precedent. Assigning such reasons, the Tribunal dismissed the original application. It is in the said circumstances that this original petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the first respondent and the learned **O.P.(KAT).28/2019** 5 Government Pleader. 6. There is no dispute with respect to the basic facts. The petitioner submitted her application, responding to the notification on 17.12.2012 and the last date of receipt of application, going by the notification was 2.01.2013. The petitioner had entered her NET qualification, which was acquired in the year 2002, in her profile only on 6.4.2016. The fact that she had failed to enter her NET qualification in her profile was virtually found out only at the time of certificate verification. After entering NET qualification on 6.4.2016, evidently, the petitioner claimed weightage marks of 4 contending that addition of four marks would place her below rank No.16 in Annexure A5 ranked list. 7. The PSC stoutly resisted the claims and contentions of the petitioner contending that the petitioner is not entitled to weightage marks for the reason that NET qualification acquired by her was entered in her profile much later to the last date fixed for receipt of application going by the notification in question. As noticed **O.P.(KAT).28/2019** 6 hereinbefore, with respect to such aspects there is no dispute. In such circumstances, the question is whether the petitioner is entitled to get weightage marks in view of the fact that the NET qualification was entered in her profile much later than the last date fixed for receipt of application. The case of the petitioner is that on realising that the NET qualification was not duly entered in her profile at the time of certificate verification, she submitted Annexure A6 representation. One of the grievances of the petitioner raised before the Tribunal was that despite the receipt of Annexure A6, the PSC has not taken any decision on the said representation. True that the PSC is having certain powers under Rule 15A of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, 1976 (for short the 'Rules'). The question is whether the said power could be invoked for effecting correction of mistakes committed by the applicants. This question was pointedly considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in **Binu Kumar v. Kerala Public Service Commission [2010 (1) KLT 1024]** . After referring to Rule 15 A of the Rules, it was held that the **O.P.(KAT).28/2019** 7 PSC got power to correct any clerical, typographical, arithmetical or other mistake in the ranked lists, advice lists or shortlists etc., or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission at any time either on its own motion or on the application of the parties. It was held that the said power under Rule 15A would not be available to correct a mistake committed by a candidate in not claiming weightage at the time of submission of the application. This decision was referred to by a Division Bench in **Shameera I.v. Kerala Public Service Commission [2016 (5) KHC 897 (DB)]** . Virtually, after referring to the decision in **Binu Kumar** 's case (supra) as also **Sasikala T.V. v. Kerala Public Service Commission [2012 (2) KHC 441],** in unambiguous terms, this Court held that the power under Rule 15A of the Rules is not available to correct mistakes which are not minor in nature, committed by the candidates. In the contextual situation, it is also relevant to refer to clause 15 and 16 of the PSC General Conditions. They read thus:- 15. Candidates are required to acquaint themselves with the instructions given in the **O.P.(KAT).28/2019** 8 notification, General Conditions and Website for filling up the application form. They will not get an opportunity to rectify any mistake in the application later. 16. Claims made subsequent to the application will not be considered under any circumstances. Proof submitted without proper claim in the application also will not be considered. Going by clause 15 of the general conditions, candidates are required to acquaint themselves with the instructions given in the notification concerned. That apart, it is specifically made clear thereunder that the candidates would not be getting an opportunity to rectify any mistake in the application. In clause 16, it was made clear that claims made subsequent to the application would not be considered under any circumstances. That apart, it is stated therein that proof submitted with proper claim in the application also would not be considered. Thus, it is obvious that with respect to such matters, the PSC had already framed a policy. After framing a policy, the PSC is bound to stick to that and adhere to these policies. In accordance with its policy PSC took the stand that qualifications **O.P.(KAT).28/2019** 9 which ought to have entered in the profile prior to the last date of receipt of an application for getting weightage marks having not been entered in the profile prior to the last date of receipt of application going by the notification concerned, a candidate cannot claim weightage marks. We are of the view that the said stand of the PSC cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. We are also of the view that the PSC is bound to adhere to said conditions. The petitioner cannot be heard to contend that ignoring and deviating from the aforesaid conditions, despite the fact that the petitioner entered the NET qualification in her profile much later than the date fixed for receipt of application, she should be granted weightage marks that too, after the culmination of the selection process. Even though it is a fact that she had submitted Annexure A6 representation prior to the publication of ranked list, it is a fact that it is only after the last date fixed for submission of application that she entered the factum of her acquisition of NET in her profile. In this case, it is to be noted that such an entry was made in her profile about four years since the last **O.P.(KAT).28/2019** 10 date for receipt of applications. The question of violation of clauses 15 and 16 of the PSC General Conditions and their impact was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in O.P.(KAT) No.47/2017 in which one among us was a member (CTR (J )). The Division Bench had also considered the decision in **Binu Kumar'** s case (supra) and also **Shameera** 's case (supra) and held that rejection of claim for weightage marks based on a modified profile cannot be said to be illegal. In the light of the aforesaid decision and taking into account the indisputable facts obtained in this case, we are of the view that the decision of the Tribunal cannot be said to be illegal or perverse warranting interference. In such circumstances, this original petition must fail and accordingly, it is dismissed. ## **Sd/-** ## **C.T.RAVIKUMAR** **JUDGE** **Sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE** **O.P.(KAT).28/2019** 11 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.10.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL IN OA (EKM) NO 2754/2017** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OA (EKM) NO 2754/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL WITH ANNEXURES** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL** spc/