Praveen Kumar K.P. v. Kerala Public Service Commission

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/24TH ASWINA, 1939 WP(C).No. 18483 of 2016 (I) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------PRAVEEN KUMAR K.P AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.C.BALAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT PRIYALAYAM, PERINGALAYI, P.O. KAPPADE, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN SRI.M.SURESH KUMAR SMT.K.B.REKHA SMT.D.N.NISHANI RESPONDENTS: -------------- 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004. 2. DISTRICT OFFICER KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE, ERNAKULAM - 16. R. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-10-2017, THE COURT ON 16-10-2017, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 18483 of 2016 (I) ---------------------------- ## APPENDIX ## PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ----------------------P1 TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DT. 31.12.2010 AND WITH CATEGORY NO. 471/2010. P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF MASTERS DEGREE IN BUSINES ADMINISTRATION ISSUED BY THE MADRAS UNIVERSITY DT 19.3.2004. P3 TRUE COPY OF THE EQUIVALENCY CERTIFICATE DT. 10.3.2015 ISSUED BY THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY. P4 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE DT. 12.3.2015 ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL HEAD OF INDUSLAND BANK LTD TO THE PETITIONER. P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 04.3.2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 12.5.2016. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS ----------------------nil /TRUE COPY/- PA TO JUDGE ## **ANU SIVARAMAN, J.** ## **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =** ## **W.P.(C).No.18483 of 2016** ## **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 16[th] day of October, 2017** ## **JUDGMENT** - 1.The prayer in this writ petition is to quash Exhibit P6 order rejecting petitioner's application for appointment to the post of Deputy General Manager of the District Co-operative Bank, Ernakulam. It is submitted that the petitioner had applied pursuant to Exhibit P1 notification. The qualifications prescribed were as follows:- - (1)Masters Degree in Business Administration or any other equivalent qualification recognised by the Universities in the State. - Or Membership in the institute of Chartered Accountants of India. - (2)Experience of not less than 3 years in Managerial/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 qualification prescribed for the post and should be received before the last date fixed for the receipt of application).” W.P.(C).No.18483/16 2 - 2.The petitioner had submitted his application accompanied by Exhibit P4 Experience Certificate. By Exhibit P5 communication dated 04.03.2015, the petitioner was required to submit Experience Certificate, in the proforma appended therewith. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner produced the original of Exhibit P4 before the respondents. Thereafter, Exhibit P6 communication was issued to him stating that the Experience Certificate submitted by him is not in tune with the nature of duties of Deputy General Manager in the District Cooperative Bank and therefore his application was rejected. Pursuant to an interim order issued by this Court, the petitioner was interviewed but the result of the interview was not made known to him. Thereafter, Exhibit P7 ranked list has been brought into force on 26.09.2016, wherein it is mentioned that result of the petitioner is withheld pending final orders in this writ petition. - 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the Experience Certificate submitted by the petitioner was fully in accordance with Exhibit P5 proforma and had been W.P.(C).No.18483/16 3 counter signed by the Regional Manager of the bank in which he was working. It is therefore contended that the rejection of the petitioner's application was illegal and unsustainable. 4.A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is stated that the petitioner's application was rejected on the ground that the Experience Certificate produced by him was not acceptable. It is stated that as per the notification, in the case of Scheduled Banks, the Experience Certificate is to be attested by the Regional Manager or higher ranked officers. It is stated that in the petitioner's case, the Experience Certificate is issued from the Kochi office and the attestation is also done by the Kochi office. It is stated that the reason shown in Exhibit P6, as the Experience Certificate differs from the nature of duty relating to the post of Deputy General Manager, was a mistake and the real reason for rejection was the mistake in the attestation. - 5.A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner specifically contending that the Regional Office as well as the Branch W.P.(C).No.18483/16 4 Office of the IndusInd Bank is situated in the same building at M.G.Road, Cochin and that the person who has attested the petitioner's Experience Certificate is the Regional Manager of the bank. To substantiate this contention, the letterhead of the attestor of Exhibit P4 certificate has also been produced. 6. I have examined the contentions advanced. The reason stated in Exhibit P6 for rejection of the petitioner's application is that his experience is inconsistent with the nature of duties of the post applied for. This reason has been given up by the respondents themselves in their counter affidavit stating that the reason was stated as a mistake. It is contended that the reason for rejection was the defect in the attestation of the Experience Certificate. Exhibit P5 would clearly show that Experience Certificates are to be signed by the Head of the Office and countersigned or attested by an officer not below the rank of Regional Manager in the case of Scheduled Banks. In the instant case, it is clear from Exhibit P4 Certificate itself that it has been attested by the Regional Head of the bank in question which is a Scheduled bank. This is more evident from W.P.(C).No.18483/16 5 Exhibit P7 letterhead of the Regional Head. In the above circumstances, the rejection of the application of the petitioner by Exhibit P6 cannot be sustained. A further argument was raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents relying on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in **District Co-operative Bank, Palakkad v. Dinesh M** [2012 (3) KHC 627] wherein it has been stated that experience required for Deputy General Manager and General Manager of Co-operative Banks should be in banking and finance and not in sales or marketing. In the instant case, this Court is specifically concerned with rejection of an application submitted in response to Exhibit P1 notification. This Court therefore needs to consider only whether the rejection of the application is legally valid going by the qualifications and eligibility as prescribed in Exhibit P1. I am convinced that the reasons stated in Exhibit P6 as also the counter affidavit for the rejection of the petitioner's application are unsustainable. 7.In the result, Exhibit P6 is set aside. There will be a direction to the respondents to publish the result of the petitioner in the W.P.(C).No.18483/16 6 interview conducted pursuant to Exhibit P1 and to proceed further with his application, in accordance with law. In case the petitioner is found eligible, his name will be included at the proper place in the ranked list and further steps shall be taken in accordance with law. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. sd/- **Anu Sivaraman, Judge** /TRUE COPY/- sj PA TO JUDGE