Raina Johny v. Registrar, Recruitment and Computerisation, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/10TH PHALGUNA 1933** **WP(C).No. 4700 of 2012 (R) ---------------------------------** **PETITIONER(S) : ----------------------** **RAINA JOHNY, MALAT HOUSE, KUMBALANGHI, KUMBALANGHI P.O., ERNAKULAM.** **BY ADV. SRI. B.KRISHNA MANI** **RESPONDENT(S) : ------------------------** **1 THE REGISTRAR, RECRUITMENT AND COMPUTERISATION HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **BY SRI. K.R.B.KAIMAL (SR.) SRI. B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **NS** ## **WP(C).No. 4700 of 2012** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :** **EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 28/9/2011 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR (RECRUITMENT AND COMPUTERISATION), HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 11/10/2011 FOR THE POST OF ASSISTANT IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21/2/2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL** **/ TRUE COPY /** **NS** **P.A. TO JUDGE** ## **K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. -----------------------W.P(C). NO. 4700 OF 2012 ------------------------** Dated this the 29[th] day of February, 2012 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the rejection of her application for selection and appointment to the post of Assistant in the High Court of Kerala. The petitioner is a Post Graduate in M.Sc. Chemistry . She also holds a B.Ed Degree. Pursuant to Ext.P1 notification issued by the respondent calling for applications to the post of Assistant in the High Court of Kerala, the petitioner submitted an application online, in accordance with the stipulations contained in Ext.P1. As per Ext.P1, after applying online, the candidates are required to take a system generated printout of the online application submitted, to sign the same, paste a passport size photograph thereon, affix their signature across the same and to send it to the respondent accompanied by a Demand Draft. The last date for receipt of the system generated printout of the on line W.P(C). No. 4700 /2012 application was 21/12/2011. 2 2. The petitioner applied online and submitted the system generated printout of the application by post on 11/10/2011, a copy of which is Ext.P2. Thereafter, the petitioner waited expecting her to be issued with an admission ticket for taking the written test. However, she was not issued with an admission ticket as expected. Though the petitioner tried to down load the admission ticket from the website, it was found that her admission ticket was not available on the website. Therefore, she made enquiries and came to know that her application had been rejected. The petitioner then realised that she had sent a photocopy of the duly filled original application instead of sending the original . According to the petitioner, by mistake a photocopy was sent by her instead of the original. The petitioner, therefore, approached the respondent and submitted Ext.P3 representation. However, there has been no response to Ext.P3 so far. Since the written examination is scheduled to be conducted on 4/3/2012, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the issue of necessary directions permitting her to appear for the examination. W.P(C). No. 4700 /2012 3 3. Senior Advocate Sri.K.R.B.Kaimal appears for the respondent. The learned senior counsel has made available to me the original application form. The original application submitted by the petitioner shows that the same is only a Photostat copy. Since no proper application was submitted by the petitioner, it is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the same has been rejected in accordance with the stipulations contained in Ext.P1. According to the learned counsel, the rejection of the petitioner's application is justified and does not call for any interference by this court. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.B.Krishna Mani as well as the learned senior counsel Sri.K.R.B.Kaimal at length. 5. Ext.P1 contains specific instructions regarding the manner in which the on line application is to be submitted. Paragraph 18 of Ext.P1 contains instructions regarding how the on line application is to be submitted. Paragraph 19 of Ext.P1 reads as follows; “19. Only those online applications the system generated printout of which is duly signed along with DD and signed photograph pasted and W.P(C). No. 4700 /2012 4 received on or before the last day prescribed for the same will be treated as valid. The High Court will not responsible for any postal delay or loss in transit.” 6. As per the above clause, the candidates have been informed in advance that only those on line applications complying with the stipulations contained therein and received on or before the last date prescribed would be treated as valid. It is further stated in paragraph 21 that applications that are submitted not in accordance with the instructions in the notification would be summarily rejected. Paragraph 21 of Ext.P1 reads as under: “21.Applications submitted not in accordance with the instructions in this notifications and the instructions in the websites will be summarily rejected.” 7. It is to be noted that the candidates had been specifically informed in advance regarding the manner in which the online applications had to be submitted and also that any application that does not comply with the stipulations contained therein would be summarily rejected. Admittedly, even according to the petitioner, the application Ext.P2 submitted by her is not in W.P(C). No. 4700 /2012 5 accordance with the stipulations in Ext.P1. In fact, as rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, the petitioner has not submitted the original application itself. 8. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ext.P2 does not contain any false information / statements that are untrue. Therefore, just because of the fact that only a photostat copy of the original application was submitted she should not be denied a chance to compete for the selection. Especially so, in view of the fact that the petitioner possesses all the necessary qualifications stipulated by Ext.P1. It is also strenuously contended that the rejection of her application on mere technical grounds without adopting a humane approach to the issue only violates the principle of fairness that is enshrined in Article 14 of our Constitution. 9. In support of his contentions, the counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision reported in **Kuriakose v. State of Kerala And Others (1984 KHC 373** ) wherein Sukumaran,J has made the following observations: “The question has to be viewed in the W.P(C). No. 4700 /2012 6 larger perspective of a citizen's fundamental right to be considered for appointment under the State. (That will include an authority like the 2[nd] respondent). Naturally, the process of selection could contain very many procedural details and conditions. The stipulations and conditions are ordinarily to be complied with. That does not, however, mean that the slightest infringement of one of those very irrelevant stipulations would also entail dismissal of the application or refusal of a selection. Everything would depend upon the nature of the condition.” 10. However, it is to be noted that the above observations have been made in a situation where relaxation granted by the Kerala Public Service Commission to a candidate for the purpose of producing his original testimonials and to cure an omission to produce them at the proper point of time was condoned. In the said writ petition, the question was whether the action of the Public Service Commission in condoning the omission to produce the original testimonials was valid or not. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the decision reported in **Santhamma v. Public Service Commission (1982 KLT 786)** . In the said case, the S.S.L.C book of the candidate therein did not contain any entry regarding the caste status. Since the column where the entry W.P(C). No. 4700 /2012 7 had to be made had been left blank the candidate filled up the said column by entering her caste as Ezhava. On enquiry with the Commissioner for Government Examinations, it was revealed that though the entry had been filled up by the candidate, the relevant entry was correct. However, in spite of the above, the Public Service Commission proceeded to disqualify the candidate. The action of the Public Service Commission was set aside by this court, making the following observations; “Article 16(4) providing for reservation of appointments in favour of backward classes has to be read along with Article 14. The petitioner was entitled for preference as a member of a backward class. Those responsible for giving her the stamp of that class had failed in their duty by making the relevant entry in her S.S.L.C. book. All that she did therefore was to do something which others should have done, in order to effectuate her claim. To hold that that amounted to a misconduct serious enough to be visited with what could conceivably be the maximum penalty, is to act mechanically and arbitrarily, and to forget the behests of Articles 14 and 16.” 12. Both the above decisions relate to instances where a discretion conferred on an authority was exercised by the W.P(C). No. 4700 /2012 8 authorities concerned. In the above decision, the discretion was exercised against the candidate to disqualify her in spite of the fact that the entry made by her was correct, though unauthorisedly made. In Kuriakose v. State of Kerala and Others (cited supra), the Public Service Commission permitted the candidate to produce the original testimonials at a later point of time thereby condoning an earlier omission. The above decisions do not have any application to the facts of the present case in view of the fact that the question of condonation does not arise in the present case at all. In the present case, no application as stipulated by the terms of Ext.P1, has been submitted by the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on another decision of this court reported in **Manoj Kumar v. Kerala Public Service Commission (1999** **(2) KLT 534)** where again the action of the Public Service Commission in permitting the candidates to cure certain minor defects was challenged. This court declined to interfere in the matter since all candidates who had committed such minor errors had been permitted to cure the defects. 13. As already noted above, this is not a case where the W.P(C). No. 4700 /2012 9 candidate has committed a minor defect. This is a case where no application as stipulated by paragraph 19 of Ext.P1 has been submitted by the candidate. As per paragraph 20 of Ext.P1, the candidates have been further informed that the High Court would not be responsible for any postal delay or loss in transit. Therefore, it has been made clear that a system generated printout in terms of paragraph 19 should reach the respondent on or before the last date. Applications that did not conform to the stipulations in Ext.P1 have been rejected in accordance with Ext.P1. The petitioner not having submitted the original application itself cannot be said to have submitted a proper application at all. Therefore, the rejection of the petitioner's application is in the circumstances justified. It is also worth noticing that many other applications would have been rejected for similar or other defects in accordance with the stipulations in Exhibit P1. Any permission to submit a fresh application in terms of paragraph 19 of Ext.P1 after curing the defects would only be counter productive and unreasonable. It would also open the flood gates of litigation with other similar requests for the condonation of each and every mistake pouring in. In such W.P(C). No. 4700 /2012 10 an event, the system itself would become unworkable. For the above reasons, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned proceedings or to grant any of the reliefs claimed in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. **Sd/K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE** dpk W.P(C). No. 4700 /2012 11