OP(KAT) Nos. 124/15, 126/15 and 133/15 (Z)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. R. Ramachandra Menon, J.
Babu Mathew P. Joseph, J.
Judgment Date: 2015-05-25
Court Decision / Holding: Interference declined and all Original Petitions are dismissed.
Final Disposition: Interference declined; Original Petitions dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Dr. Sajitha R.
W/o Dr. Vikas Vijayan

Respondents

Kerala Public Service Commission represented by its Secretary, Kerala Public Service Commission, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram 695004
The Secretary, Kerala Public Service Commission, Regional Office Ernakulam (Near South Railway Station Eastern Entry Tower) 682016

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri R. Lakshmi Narayan
• Smt. R. Ranjini

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri P. C. Sasidharan, Senior Counsel, KPSC

Case Synopsis & Summary

The present set of OP(KAT) petitions arises from a common cause of action challenging the Kerala Public Service Commission’s handling of a recruitment for Homoeopathy Medical Officers. The petitioners contend that there was a lapse in uploading the applicant’s name and date of photograph in the PSC application, which they submit is a minor clerical error capable of correction. They rely on a one-time corrective measure announced by the PSC (Annexure A-12) and contend that, since the selection process was not yet finalised, they should be entitled to relief. The matter was heard alongside connected cases and relied on prior jurisprudence from this Court, notably Sasikala v. Kerala Public Service Commission (2012(2)KLT 585) and Sreejesh Vijayan v. State of Kerala (2014(1)KLT 1003), which discussed the severity of such lapses and the approach to interference. The PSC argues that Annexure A-12 is not a comprehensive or universally applicable remedy; the notification published in the PSC Bulletin clarifies the scope and limitations of the one-time measure, specifying that benefits apply only where the selection process had not commenced. It was shown that test results were already declared on 4.10.2013 and the process had begun, hence one-time relief could not apply. The court ultimately held that there was no merit in interference, and the petitions were dismissed.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that the lapse in uploading the 'name' and 'date of the photograph' in the application is a minor clerical error that should be curable and subject to the PSC's one-time correction mechanism (Annexure A-12), applicable to processes where the last date to apply has passed but the selection process has not yet commenced. They note that the period from 1.4.2014 to 15.5.2014 allowed corrections for such cases and argue that their case falls within the intended scope, as the selection process had not yet been finalised.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that Annexure A-12 is only a paper report and the PSC notification published in the PSC Bulletin clearly limits the benefit: it applies only to the selection process where the last date for sending applications has passed but the selection process has not yet commenced. In the present cases, the written test was completed on 4.10.2013 and the selection process had already begun; therefore the one-time correction measure cannot be invoked and there is no merit in interference.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sasikala v. Kerala Public Service Commission	2012(2)KLT 585	Positive	The court relied on this decision that the lapse is a serious one and declined to interfere.
Sreejesh Vijayan v. State of Kerala	2014(1)KLT 1003	Positive	The position was affirmed by this verdict, supporting the stance against interference.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2015/4TH JYAISHTA, 1937 OP(KAT).No. 124 of 2015 (Z) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------------- DR. SAJITHA R. W/O.DR.VIKAS VIJAYAN, “USHUS”, POOMALA KOOVAKKANDAM P.O., THODUPUZHA-685588. BY ADVS.SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN SMT.R.RANJINI RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS IN O.A.: ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695004. 2. THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REGIONAL OFFICE ERNAKULAM (NEAR SOUTH RAILWAY STATION EASTERN ENTRY TOWER) 682016. R BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-05-2015, ALONG WITH OPKAT. 126/2015, OPKAT. 133/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(KAT).No. 124 of 2015 (Z) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P1. THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.3.2015 IN O.A.(EKM) NO.194/2015. EXT.P2. THE TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.(EKM) NO.194/2015 ALONG WITH EXHIBITS. EXT.P3. THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.3.2015 IN O.A.(EKM) NO.258 OF 2015. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL ks. True copy P.S. (Hr.Gr.)To Judge ## **P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON & BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.** ## **==============================** ## **O.P. (KAT) Nos. 124, 126 & 133 of 2015** **============================== Dated this the 25[th] day of May, 2015** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **P.R. Ramachandra Menon,J.** The issue involved in all these cases is in respect of similar cause of action and hence all these cases are disposed of together. The question to be considered is whether the lapse on the part of the petitioners in not uploading the 'name' and 'date of the photograph' in the application submitted in response to the notification issued by the Public Service Commission (PSC) for selection and appointment of the post of Medical Officers (Homoeo) is a minor mistake or not? OP KAT 124/15 & CONN.CASES 2 2. Various contentions have been raised in the original petitions. The petitioners concerned have approached this Court because of the interference declined by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT) in the concerned O.As. 3. Heard both the sides. It is born out by the materials on record that the matter was heard in detail by the KAT involving a similar issue and a detailed judgment was passed therein. Interference sought for was declined by placing reliance on the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court reported in **Sasikala v. Kerala Public Service Commission (2012(2)KLT 585).** 4. On going through the contents of the said verdict, this Court finds that, after meticulous analysis of the facts and figures and the relevant provisions of law, it has been held by the Bench that the mistake, as similar to the issue involved in the present case, is a serious one? It was accordingly, that interference was declined and the case was OP KAT 124/15 & CONN.CASES 3 dismissed. Reference was made to the said decision, on a subsequent occasion, by another Division Bench of this Court (to which one of us was a member) and the position was affirmed as per the verdict in **Sreejesh Vijayan v. State of Kerala** ( **2014(1)KLT 1003).** It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, in respect of the very same selection exercise involved herein, some other aggrieved parties had approached this Court with similar grievance by filing OP (KAT) No. 1356 of 2014 and after considering the matter, the said O.P. was dismissed as devoid of any merit. This Court does not find any reason to take deviation from the law already declared. 5. However, during the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, in view of the subsequent developments, particularly pursuant to the challenge raised by some of the aggrieved persons before the Apex Court, the PSC had OP KAT 124/15 & CONN.CASES 4 decided to extend an opportunity as “one time measure” to effect corrections and it was accordingly, that Annexure A-12 (forming part of Ext.P2 produced along with OP(KAT) No. 126 of 2015) came to be issued. As per the decision taken by the PSC, an opportunity was given to the aggrieved persons to effect the corrections for uploading the 'name' and 'date of the photograph' as a one time measure, during the period from 1.4.2014 to 15.5.2014. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are also to be given relief to the said extent, as the selection process has not been finalised. 6. The version of the petitioners is sought to be rebutted by the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC, pointing out that the document produced as 'Annexure-A12' is only a paper report, which is not a fully correct version. In fact, the concerned notification issued by the PSC has been published in the 'PSC Bulletin'. A copy of the said notification OP KAT 124/15 & CONN.CASES 5 is placed for consideration before this Court. After referring to the one time registration, the particulars with regard to the time within which the benefit has to be availed, have been clearly stated, also stipulating the last date. It has also been categorically mentioned that, such benefits will be extended **only in respect of the selection process where the last date for sending the application is already over, but where the selection process is still to be commenced** . This vital aspect, as to the commencement of the selection process, is never made a mention in Annexure A-12 forming part of Ext.P2 produced in OP (KAT) 126 of 2015. 7. Admittedly, written test in the instant case was over on '4.10.2013' and as such, the selection process has already begun; which hence does not come within the purview of Annexure A-12 notification issued as a one time measure. This being the position, this Court does not find OP KAT 124/15 & CONN.CASES 6 any merit to interfere with the selection process being pursued by the PSC. Interference is declined and all the Original Petitions are dismissed. **Sd/P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE** **Sd/-** **BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH** **JUDGE** **ks.** True copy P.S. (Hr.Gr.)To Judge OP KAT 124/15 & CONN.CASES 7