Satheesh Kumar T.T v. Kerala Public Service Commission and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/1ST KARTHIKA, 1936** **WP(C).No. 27809 of 2013 (A) ----------------------------** **PETITIONER(S):** **--------------** **SATHEESH KUMAR T.T, THONIPPARA HOUSE, PARUTHIMOODU, KANGAZHA P.O. KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686541.** **BY ADVS.SRI.S.RANJITH** **SRI.GOKUL DAS V.V.H.** **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------** **1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THULASI HILLS PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695004.** **2. THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THULASI HILLS PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695004.** **3. DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE KOTTAYAM, PI-686001.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No. 27809 of 2013 (A)** **----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **------------------------** **P1: CASTE CERTIFICATE BEARING NUMBER 5947/C1/2013/K/DIS. DATED 17.05.2013 BY THE TAHSILDAR, CHANGANACHERRY.** **P2: COPY OF THE IDENTIFICATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.** **P3: COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET (HALL TICKET) ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.** **P4: COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 04.05.2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **P5: COPY OF COMPUTER PRINTOUT OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 31.3.2011 ALONG WITH THE GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR UPLOADING PHOTOGRAPH ON INTERNET WEBSITE http://www.keralapsc.gov.in/.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **------------------------** **EXHIBIT R1(a): COPY OF IDENTIFICATION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF ANOTHER CANDIDATE.** **/TRUE COPY/** **PS TO JUDGE** ## **A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J ---------------------------------------------W.P(C).No. 27809 of 2013 ----------------------------------------------** ## **Dated this the 23[rd] October, 2014** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to include his name in the rank list published by the Kerala Public Service Commission for the post of Mazdoor (Electrical Worker) in the Kerala State Electricity Board in Kottayam District and for other reliefs. 2. The facts involved in the case would disclose that based on Exhibit P5 notification, applications were called for from candidates for selection to the post of Mazdoor (Electrical Worker) in the Kerala State Electricity Board. Last date for receipt of application was 4.5.2011. The applications were to be submitted by on-line through the Website of the Kerala Public Service Commission. The petitioner had submitted his application. His application was received, necessary tests were conducted, he was called for physical test and documents verified. Cycling test was also conducted. After conducting all these 2 _**WP(C).27809/13**_ procedures, later the petitioner was informed that he cannot be included in the rank list on account of the fact that the dimension of the photograph, which he had uploaded along with his application was not as per the specification published by the Public Service Commission. Exhibit P2 is the identification certificate issued to the petitioner by PSC, which contains the photograph as well. 3. According to the petitioner, as per the specification given in terms of Exhibit P5, photograph has to be uploaded and it is stated that the images, which are uploaded should not be having 200 pixels height and 150 pixels width. It should not be in 'JBG' format and it should not exceed a file size of 30 Kb. This, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, can only mean that the images, which are uploaded, are within the specification. Whether the photograph uploaded should be a passport size or of lesser size is not specifically mentioned. That apart, persons like the petitioner approach a service provider for uploading such applications. Therefore, there is no _**WP(C).27809/13**_ 3 irregularity committed by the petitioner. Merely for the reason that the photograph uploaded is of smaller size than the column provided for the same does not mean that his application should be rejected. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed by PSC inter alia stating that the images that are being uploaded should be within the parameters specified therein and since the photograph, which is an image is not shown within the column provided for it, the application of the petitioner could be rejected. They also produced Exhibit R3(a), a similar application submitted by another person to indicate the size of the photograph, which is normally acceptable to PSC. 5. The short question involved in this Writ Petition is whether the application of the petitioner is to be rejected on the ground that the photograph uploaded is smaller than the column provided for the same. It is not in dispute that applications were uploaded in the Website of PSC and those applications were processed. It is not a case 4 _**WP(C).27809/13**_ where the application was uploaded in any other form other than the size of the photograph. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, no specific size was mentioned in the application relating to photograph and therefore, such a contention cannot be taken. Even otherwise, if a person could be identified from the photograph and the on-line application has been uploaded by the system, there is nothing wrong in the petitioner's application being considered by PSC. Learned Standing Counsel for PSC has relied on a judgment of this Court reported in _**Sasikala v. KPSC**_ (2012(2) KHC 441(DB)) to contend that if an application is defective, nothing prevents PSC to reject the said application. That was a case where two crucial requirements with reference to name of the petitioner and date of photograph were not written in the photograph. This was considered to be an essential feature of the application and this Court has come to the conclusion that PSC was justified in rejecting such application. The facts of the present case are _**WP(C).27809/13**_ 5 different. Here the petitioner had uploaded his photograph. There was no specification that the photograph should be of a particular size. The application submitted by the petitioner was for the post of Mazdoor and the applicant is not expected to know details of specification mentioned in Exhibit P5. That apart, when the photograph has already been uploaded, there is no reason to reject the application complaining that the size of the photograph uploaded is smaller than the column provided for the same. 6. Learned Standing Counsel for PSC has produced an instruction published by PSC in its Bulletin, which inter alia states that the photographs that are to be uploaded should be of passport size. Of course, it could be said that the petitioner should have known about it. But, taking into consideration the fact that Exhibit P5 notification did not contain any such restriction, I do not think that the terms in the Bulletin can have any relevance as far as this Writ Petition is concerned. 6 _**WP(C).27809/13**_ 7. In the said circumstances, I am of the view that the Writ Petition can be allowed. There will be a direction to the respondents to treat the petitioner's application as a valid application and to include the petitioner in the rank list prepared by the Kerala Public Service Commission within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is allowed as directed above. **A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE** vgs23/10/14