Shaju A. v. Kerala Public Service Commission

## IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2013/3RD MAGHA 1934 ## **W.A.No.2274 of 2012** ---------------------------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).No.15811/2012, DATED 19-10-2012) ------------- ## **APPELLANT** / PETITIONER:- --------------------------------------- SHAJU. A., NEYYARATHALA VEEDU, NETTAYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695013. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.RAJEEVAN. ## **RESPONDENTS/** RESPONDENTS:- ------------------------------------------------- 1. KERALA PUBIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 004. 2. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 023. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001. R1 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN R2 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA. R3 BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.GIRIJA GOPAL. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 1.1.2013, THE COURT ON 23.01.2013 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- Manjula Chellur, C.J. & K.Vinod Chandran, J. --------------------------------------------------------------W.A.No.2274 of 2012 --------------------------------------------------------------Dated this, the 23[rd] day of January, 2013 ## JUDGMENT ## K.Vinod Chandran,J.: Appellant/writ petitioner, an applicant for direct recruitment to the post of “Reserve Driver” in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC), is in appeal from the judgment of a learned single Judge upholding the rejection of his application by the Kerala State Public Service Commission (PSC). PSC, which was the recruiting agency for the KSRTC, had published a notification dated 15.7.2010 inviting applications for recruitment to the post. The notification, produced as Exhibit P1, clearly stipulated that the driving licence should be a current one on the date of application. The last date of application notified in Exhibit P1 was 18.08.2010. The appellant applied for the post, despite his having no valid driving licence as on the last date of application. Admittedly, the appellant's driving licence expired on 9.1.2008 and it was got renewed only on 9.3.2011. The PSC, hence, rejected the application of the appellant for reason of his having no valid driving licence at the time of application. W.A.No.2274/2012 - 2 - 2. Appellant was before this Court with a writ petition, which was considered by the learned single Judge along with various other writ petitions filed against the rejection of applications for the very same recruitment, but for similar or different reasons. The entire controversy was with respect to an 'erratum notification' published by the PSC on 15.11.2010, wherein it was specified that the “candidates shall possess Current Driving Licence on the last date for receipt of application/Practical Test/Interview”. This was so in the English version of the notification. However, the Malayalam version would indicate that the stipulation was that such valid driving licence should be held by an applicant on the last date for receipt of application, as also practical test/interview. It was the contention of the PSC before the learned single Judge that the erratum notification was one which stipulated the condition of holding a valid driving licence on all the said dates. The learned single Judge having considered the issue elaborately as also the binding precedents on the issue, held that the judicial declarations would clearly show that the recruiting agency cannot change the “rules of the game” after the initiation of the selection procedure by the recruiting agency. Considering the issue of whether the recruiting agency could bring in more onerous conditions and increase the rigour of basic qualification; the learned single Judge W.A.No.2274/2012 - 3 - rejected the contention of the PSC and held that such rigour cannot be brought in after the initial notification was published. 3. However, in this appeal, we are not concerned with the validity of the erratum notification in the nature of providing a more onerous or rigorous condition. The appellant herein would rely on the erratum notification to contend that it is in fact not a rigour that has been imposed and is in the nature of a relaxation of the condition. It is to be noticed that this is quite contrary to the contention of the recruiting agency which brought out the notification. 4. The appellant would rely on Exhibit P14 to contend that the Government has issued clarification conferring powers on the PSC to change the qualifications, method of appointment, etc. after the issuance of the notification in cases where changes announced amount to concessions or exemptions granted to persons already included in the ranked list. The learned counsel for the appellant would also urge that English version with “slashes” between the words “last date for receipt of application”, “practical test” and “interview” would indicate that the prescription of holding a valid driving licence is to be satisfied on either of these dates and not on all of these dates. The same being a concession, it is the contention that the PSC was well within its powers to grant such concessions. W.A.No.2274/2012 - 4 - 5. It is a moot question as to whether even such concessions or exemptions can be granted after the rank list is published, because, then, that would amount to excluding those candidates from the public who would have been entitled to apply with reference to the lesser qualification prescribed by reason of the concession being granted subsequently. It is, probably, to that end that Exhibit P14 speaks of concessions or exemptions to persons already included in the ranked list as also “prospective candidates”. Rank list is published after the selection process is over, and there cannot be further prospective candidates who could be given the benefit of exemptions or concessions. However, we are not concerned with the validity of Exhibit P14 notification. 6. Though the appellant contends that the erratum notification was in the way of concession, the author of the said notification, viz., the PSC, asserts otherwise. The PSC, in raising such contention, is also amply supported by the Malayalam version. The rigour intended by the erratum notification in any event, has been negated by the learned single Judge. 7. It is pertinent that the very same issue came up for consideration before another Division Bench in W.A.No.951 of 2012 and by judgment dated 21.06.2012 the interim order granted by the W.A.No.2274/2012 - 5 - learned Single Judge was set aside and writ petition itself was dismissed, holding that the writ petitioner who had no valid driving licence on the date of application was disentitled from competing in the recruitment process. The learned counsel for the appellant would again point to Exhibit P14 notification and the contention that the erratum notification was a concession to argue that the issue was not considered by the earlier Division Bench. 8. With regard to statutory interpretation, a Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in _**Abdul Samad v. State of Kerala,**_ **2007 (4) KLT 473,** while reiterating the oft quoted principle that “when the words of a statute are clear, plain and unambiguous and capable of one meaning only, the courts are bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective consequences”; it was also held that in the case of conflict between the non-English version and English version, then the non-English version can be referred to as an external aid to interpret. It was also held that unlike the Acts of Parliament, when Legislature passes the Act in the regional language and later it is translated in to English, the version in regional language assumes more importance. True, in this case we are not concerned with a statute; but only with a notification issued by the PSC. But the principle can be safely imported especially in the context of examining W.A.No.2274/2012 - 6 - the intention behind the notification as spoken to by the authority, i.e., the PSC. 9. The conditions stipulated in Exhibit P1 notification was that the applicants should have a valid driving licence as on the date of application. The appellant, admittedly, did not have a valid driving licence till the last date of application, as notified. The erratum notification has been held to bring in more onerous conditions after the selection process was commenced and was held to be unenforceable by the learned single Judge. The said finding is assailed by the appellant on the ground that the erratum notification does not provide more rigour; but provides a concession. We cannot accept the said contention, since the author of the notification itself urges the intention behind the notification as a condition for holding valid driving licence on all the dates and also looking at the words employed in the notification brought out in the regional language. 10. A concession or exemption also cannot be brought in subsequently; that too after the last date of applications, since then, there would be no question of any prospective candidates as contemplated in Exhibit P14. The recruiting agency cannot be said to have powers to relax the conditions brought out in a notification to favour certain applicants who were apparently disentitled from W.A.No.2274/2012 - 7 - applying as per the original notification. In the teeth of this, it cannot be said that the erratum notification results in an exemption or concession. Neither can the basic qualifications be made more onerous; nor can it be relaxed, going by the binding judicial precedents noticed by the learned single Judge, viz., _**Public Service**_ _**Commission v. Biju,**_ **2008 (2) KLT 380,** _**Oriental Insurance Company v. Kali,**_ **2005 (2) KLT 490,** and _**Rohini v. Kumaran,**_ **2006 (2) KLT 8.** In the circumstances, following the decision in W.A.No.951of 2012 dated 21.06.2012, we dismiss the above appeal, however, with no order as to costs. Sd/Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice Sd/- vku/02/01. K.Vinod Chandran, Judge. ## ( true copy )