S. Shajahan v. Kerala Public Service Commission & District Officer, Kerala Public Service Commission, Kollam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2011 / 31ST SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 38723 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- S.SHAJAHAN,S/O.SAINLABDEEN,WORKING AS ATTENDER,ADICHANALLOOR FARMERS SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD.NO.2609,ADICHANALLOOR,KOLLAM DISTRICT, R/AT SAJID NIVAS,VARINJAM,EDANAD PO, KOLLAM691571. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM PALACE PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4. 2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER,KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ANDAMUKKAM,KOLLAM 691 001. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.M.MANOJ ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **W.P.(C) No. 38723/2010** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** - **EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION IN CATEGORY NO:177/2007 ISSUED BY THE P.S.C.** - **EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE HALL TICKET ISSUED BY THE P.S.C. TO THE PETITIONER EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS DATED 14.12.2010** - **EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.QSS 1(3)3776/09 DATED 1.1.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER** - **EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO:13/2009 DATED 29.5.2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT** - **EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE REPLY NO.QR-II(3)56/10 ISSUED TO ONE LALITHA KUMARI UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT** - **EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE FINAL RANK LIST DATED 5.3.2011 PUBLISHED BY THE RESPONDENTS** - **EXT.P8 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT ON 1.8.2011 AND THE REPLY DATED 8.8.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:** ## **NIL** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE** vps ## **P.N.RAVINDRAN** , **J.** ## **--------------------------W.P.(C) No. 38723 OF 2010 -------------------------Dated this the 22[nd] day of August, 2011** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner is an employee of the Adichanalloor Farmers Service Co-operative Bank, a Primary Co-operative Society affiliated to the Kolam District Co-operative Bank. By Ext.P1 notification, the Kerala Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission' for short) invited applications for appointment to the post of Peon/Watchman in various District Co-operative Banks including the Kollam District Co-operative Bank. As per the rules, appointment to District Co-operative Banks is made from two streams; 50% from the open market and 50% from the employees of Primary Co-operative Societies affiliated to the concerned District Co-operative Bank. In Ext.P1 notification, which was common to both categories, the category number given to the post of Peon/Watchman which was required to be filled up by direct recruitment from the open market was 176/2007 while the category number of the post of Peon/Watchman which was required to be filled up from among employees of Primary Co-operative Societies was 177/2007. 2. Pursuant to Ext.P1 notification, the petitioner applied for WPC No.38723/2010 2 appointment as Peon/Watchman in the Kollam District Cooperative Bank. Ext.P2 admission ticket was issued inviting him to appear for the written test held on 21.2.2009. The petitioner appeared for the written test. Later, a short list of candidates was published on 4.12.2010. The petitioner's name did not find a place therein. He thereupon submitted Ext.P3 representation dated 14.12.2010 seeking inclusion of his name in the short list. Inter alia, in that representation itself he had stated that he has come to understand that his name was excluded from the short list as the wrong category number in the application. This writ petition was thereafter filed on 28.12.2010 seeking the following reliefs. _“(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the Short List published on 4.12.2010 pursuant to Ext.P1 Notification in Category No:177/2007 to the post of Peon/Watchman (Part-II by Transfer) within a stipulated time as directed by this Hon'ble Court._ _(iii) To declare that the petitioner is entitled to get include his name in the Short List published on 4.12.2010 pursuant to Ext.P1 Notification in Category No:177/2007 to the post of Peon/Watchman (Part-II by Transfer)_ _(iv) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to consider and dispose of Ext.P3 within a stipulated time as directed by this Hon'ble Court and include the name_ WPC No.38723/2010 3 _of the petitioner in the Short List published on 4.12.2010 pursuant to Ext.P1 Notification in Category No:177/2007 to the post of Peon/Watchman (Part-II by Transfer).”_ 3. The District Officer of the Commission thereafter sent Ext.P4 letter dated 1.1.2011 to the petitioner informing him that as he had given the wrong category number (176/2007 in the place of 177/2007) his application was rejected in terms of Circular No.13/2009 dated 29.5.2009. A copy thereof is produced and marked as Ext.P5. The writ petition was thereupon amended seeking the following additional relief: _“(i) To call for the records leading to the petitioner's case from the respondents and to issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P4 as illegal and it is contrary to the P.S.C. Rules of Procedure.”_ _4_ . The main contention raised by the petitioner is that Ext.P5 circular, which was relied on in Ext.P4 letter, has only prospective operation, that even on the terms of Ext.P5 circular the petitioner was eligible to apply for the post of Peon/Watchman in Kollam District Co-operative Bank and therefore, his application was not liable to be rejected on the ground that a wrong category number was given. It is also contended that Ext.P2 admission ticket was issued inviting the petitioner to appear for the written test on 21.2.2009 showing WPC No.38723/2010 4 the category number as 177/2007 (the correct category code) and therefore the rejection of his application on the ground that a wrong category number was written in the application is illegal. 5. The Commission has filed a counter affidavit dated 16.2.2011 and produced along with it as Ext.R1(a) the application form submitted by the petitioner and the OMR data sheet. It is contended that in the application and in the OMR data sheet, the petitioner had given the category number as 176/2007 and had also stated that the method of recruitment is by direct recruitment, that his application was therefore defective and was rejected by the Commission. Reliance is placed on a series of decisions of this Court to contend that the Commission is not bound to entertain defective applications which contain wrong category numbers and that the mere admission of a candidate for appearance in the examination will not confer on him any right to have his application entertained, if his application was defective. Reliance is placed on paragraph 10 of the instructions issued to candidates on the reverse of the admission ticket issued to the candidates. 6. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by WPC No.38723/2010 5 the learned counsel on either side. It is evident from Ext.R1(a) that the petitioner had given the category number as 176/2007. The said category number is the category number of the post of Peon/Watchman which was required to be filled up by direct recruitment from the open market. The petitioner had in the OMR data sheet stated that the method of recruitment which he has chosen is by direct recruitment. However as stated by the Commission he was provisionally invited to appear for the written test. The stand of the Commission is that on the reverse of the admission ticket issued to the petitioner it was clearly stipulated in instruction No.10 that admission tickets are issued before scrutiny of the applications and that if later the applications are found to be defective, such applications will be rejected. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made available to me the original of Ext.P2 admission ticket. The reverse of the hall ticket contains the stipulation referred to in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit that mere admission to any test or interview or inclusion in the ranked list will not confer any right to the candidate and that the candidature is provisional at all stages and Commission reserves the right to reject any candidature at any WPC No.38723/2010 6 stage of the selection even after the advice have been made. Therefore the mere fact that Ext.P2 admission ticket was issued cannot be taken as a ground to hold that as the petitioner's application was entertained and acted upon, the Commission cannot later reject his application. 6. A Division Bench of this Court, of which I was a member, had in W.A. No.348 of 2010 held that the Commission was perfectly right in rejecting the application when the applicant had entered wrong category number in the application. The same view was reiterated by another Division Bench of this Court in W.A No.1236 of 2010. In that Writ Appeal, the Division Bench held that even if the Commission allowed the candidate to appear for the written examination, the Commission is not estoped from rejecting the application of that candidate on the ground that it is defective. The same view was taken by a learned single Judge of this Court in **Neena v. Public Service Commission** (2010 (1) KLT 258) wherein the learned Judge held that merely because a hall ticket was issued to the candidate it cannot be said that the Commission is bound by it and cannot at a later stage reject the application. WPC No.38723/2010 7 In the light of the authoritative pronouncements referred to above and in view of the admitted fact that the petitioner had given a wrong category number in the application, it cannot be said that the decision taken by the Commission to reject his application is in any way arbitrary or illegal. I therefore find no grounds to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. **P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE)** vps WPC No.38723/2010 8 ## **P.N.RAVINDRAN** , **J. --------------------------W.P.(C) No. 38723 OF 2010 -------------------------Dated this the 10[th] day of January, 2011** ## **O R D E R** The petitioner has pursuant to the order passed by this court on 3.1.2011, made available the original of Ext.P2 admission ticket. The original of the admission ticket discloses that the petitioner was called to appear for a written test held on 21.2.2009 for appointment to the post of Peon/Watchman by transfer. The category code is mentioned in the hall ticket as 177/2007. On the other hand, the photostat copy of the application form submitted by the petitioner, which was made available by the learned standing counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission, discloses that the petitioner had given the category code of the post as 176/2007. This discloses that though in the application the category number was wrongly given, the Kerala Public Service Commission had invited the petitioner for the written test. In such circumstances, the learned standing counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission shall ascertain and submit WPC No.38723/2010 9 whether the answer script of the petitioner was valued and if the answer script was valued, whether going by the marks secured by the petitioner, his name was liable to be included in the short list and whether in that case, he would have been included in the ranked list also. Post after two weeks. Handover a copy of this order to both sides on usual terms. **P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE)** vps WPC No.38723/2010 10 WPC No.38723/2010 11