Sajila P.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission & Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2010 / 21ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 32243 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SAJILA P.K., AGED 38 YEARS, D/O.DIVAKARAN, POOKKOT, PARAKKADAVU, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, CALICUT. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. DILIP MOHAN FOR R3 ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC FOR R1&2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO32243/2009 ## APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S B.Ed DEGREE CERTIFICATE EXT.P2. COPY OF THE HALL TICKET ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE PSC TO APPEAR FOR THE WRITTEN TEST FOR THE POST OF HSA (ENGLISH) FOR CALICUT DISTRICT EXT.P3. COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE PSC DT. 9.9.2009 EXT.P4. COPY OF THE SHORT LIST PUBLISHED BY THE PSC DT.20.10.09 FOR THE POST OF HSA (ENGLISH) FOR CALICUT DISTRICT PA TO JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ ## **C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------W.P.(C) No. 32243 OF 2009 -------------------------Dated this the 12[th] day of July, 2010** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner submitted an application for the post of HSA (English) in Kozhikode District pursuant to Gazette notification dated 13.10.2006 published by the Kerala Public Service Commission. Admittedly, going by the aforesaid Gazette notification dated 13.10.2006, the category number assigned for direct recruitment of HSA (English) was 83/06. In respect of the same post recruitment by appointment by transfer was notified with category number 84/06. It is a common case that the petitioner has, in her application for appointment under direct recruitment, shown the category No. as 84/06. On 9.9.2009, as per Ext.P3 the petitioner was informed about the rejection of her application made pursuant to the notification dated 13.10.2006 on the ground that she has wrongly incorporated the category number in her application. On receipt of Ext.P3 communication, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P4 representation. But, no action was taken on Ext.P4. Thereafter, the Commissioner has fixed the date for interviewing the successful candidates in the written examination. It is in the said WPC No.32243/09 2 circumstances, with a prayer to permit her to participate in the interview that this writ petition has been filed. 2. Certain incontrovertible facts obtained in this case, which are relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue involved in this case, are as follows:- The petitioner had applied for direct recruitment to the post of HSA (English) in Calicut district. The category number assigned as per the Gazette notification dated 13.10.2006 for direct recruitment was 83/06. Category No.84/06 was assigned for recruitment to the said post by appointment by transfer. In her application, the petitioner has shown the category number as 84/06. 3. According to the petitioner, the wrong entry of the category number in her application is only a curable minor defect. However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that it cannot be taken as a curable minor defect. Further, it is contended that the issue involved in this case is squarely covered against the petitioner by the decision of this Court in **Neena v. Public Service Commission** (2010 (1) KLT 258) and a Division Bench decision of this Court in W.A. No.348 of 2010. Indisputably, WPC No.32243/09 3 the issue posed for consideration in those decisions also pertained to the wrong entry of category number by an applicant in the PSC application. I do not think it is necessary to go into the facts of this case any further in view of the above mentioned incontrovertible facts. The question to be decided, in the light of the above facts obtained in this case and in view of the decisions reported in **Neena v. Public Service Commission** (2010 (1) KLT 258) and W.A. No.348 of 2010 is whether the wrong entry of the category code in the application is vital and fatal entailing rejection of the very application or whether it could be treated as a minor curable defect as contended by the petitioner. 4. A scanning of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition, in the light of the decisions reported in **Neena v. Public Service Commission** (2010 (1) KLT 258) and W.A. No.348 of 2010, would compel me to dispel the contentions of the petitioner. In the decision reported in **Neena v. Public Service Commission** (2010 (1) KLT 258) this Court considered the following questions:- (1) Whether the mistake in mentioning the category code by an applicant in the application form is vital ? WPC No.32243/09 4 (2) Whether the mere issuance of hall ticket disentitles the PSC to reject the application at a later stage ? 5. In the case on hand, the petitioner has incorrectly entered the category code in the application. The petitioner was issued with a hall ticket and consequently, she had appeared for the written test. Therefore, essentially the aforesaid two questions call for consideration in this writ petition as well. After adverting to the Circular issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission dated 29.5.2009 and after considering the rival contentions, this Court answered both the aforesaid questions against the petitioner therein. Both the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.30273/2009 i.e., the petitioner in the decision reported in 2010 (1) KLT 258 and the petitioner herein are applicants for one and the same selection. In other words, both of them applied in response to the same notification for selection to the post of HSA (English) in Kozhikode District and, significantly, both of them committed the very same mistake viz., wrongly mentioned Category No.84/2006 instead of Category No.83/2006. 6. Against the judgment in W.P.(C) No.30273/2009 writ appeal was preferred as W.A.No.348/2010. In W.A. No.348 of 2010 WPC No.32243/09 5 ## it was held as follows:- “The short point that arises for decision in this case is, whether the decision of the PSC impugned is, one within jurisdiction. We have no doubt in our mind that if the application does not mention the correct category number, it is a defective application. If the PSC decides to reject a defective application, the same cannot be said to be ultra vires or unauthorised. If the decision of the PSC is one within jurisdiction, this Court cannot probe into the matter any further. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the decision of the learned Single Judge. ”(emphasis supplied) 7. Therefore according to me, the questions posed for consideration in this case are squarely covered against the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sought to assail Ext.P3 on various other grounds as well. I do not think it appropriate to probe into the matter any further in view of the Division Bench judgment in W.A.No.348 of 2010 . The above extracted portion from the said judgment would undoubtedly show that the action on the part of the PSC in rejecting an application that carried a wrong entry of the category number viz., a defective application cannot be said to be ultra vires or unauthorised. The Division Bench further held that if the decision of the PSC is one within jurisdiction of the court cannot probe into the matter any further. WPC No.32243/09 6 8. In view of the aforesaid decisions of this Court the action in Ext.P3 can only be an action within the jurisdiction of the PSC and hence, in view of the Division Bench decision referred supra, this Court cannot probe into the matter any further. Therefore, I am of the view that even a deviation from the procedure in the office manual of the KPSC cannot be a reason for taking a different view from the one that was already taken by this Court in **Neena v. Public Service Commission** (2010 (1) KLT 258) and W.A. No. 348 of 2010. In the circumstances, I am of the view that there is no merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. **C.T.RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** vps WPC No.32243/09 7 WPC No.32243/09 8