Sharnas K. v. State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN WEDNESDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1945 OP(KAT) NO. 105 OF 2024** **ORDER DATED 19.01.2024 IN OA (EKM) NO.689 OF 2023 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** **(ADDITIONAL BENCH, ERNAKULAM)** ## **PETITIONER/APPLICANT:** **SHARNAS K., AGED 34 YEARS KADAVATH HOUSE, MANNATHIPOYIL P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679332** **BY ADVS. A.ARUNA JISHA SHAJI** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001** - **2 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004** **3 SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004** OP(KAT) NO. 105 OF 2024 ..2.. - **4 DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DISTRICT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, NEW BLOCK. MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505** - **5 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695014 SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC** **THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** OP(KAT) NO. 105 OF 2024 **==> picture [31 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** ## JUDGMENT ## SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J. The applicant before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananathapuram, has come up with this original petition, challenging the order of the tribunal dated 19.01.2024 in OA No.689 of 2023. The State and its officials, who were respondents before the tribunal, are the respondents herein. 2. The issue involved in this case is the rejection of an application filed by the petitioner/applicant for the post of High School Teacher (Hindi) for Malappuram District for Category No.562/2021 for omitting to note the name of the applicant and date of the photograph taken, in the photo uploaded along with the application. The petitioner applied to the post of High School Teacher (Hindi) for Malappuram District for Category No.562/2021 and became successful in the written test held on 13.04.2022. She was included in Annex.A3 shortlist published by the PSC. The petitioner also applied for the post of Part-Time High School Teacher (Hindi) OP(KAT) NO. 105 OF 2024 **==> picture [31 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** for Kottayam District for Category No.422/2019. The examination held on 13.04.2022 was common for both categories. The verification process for Category No.562/2021 was scheduled on 29.03.2023. While so, when the petitioner contacted the office of the fourth respondent, she was advised that she need not attend the verification process on 29.03.2023 since a verification with respect to Category No.422/2019 was already completed. Thereafter, she received Annex.A4 letter dated 29.03.2023 instructing her to appear for verification on 05.04.2023 at 10.15 am and also to upload the One and the Same Certificate since her name and date of the photograph taken were not shown in the photo uploaded. Accordingly, the petitioner uploaded Annex.A5 One and the Same Certificate, the original of which was produced for verification on 05.04.2023. It was accepted by the PSC and in the profile, they marked it as verified. Thereafter, she received Annex.A7 message in her profile, stating that her application for Category No.562/2021 is rejected since the name and date of the photograph taken are not shown in the photo uploaded. Aggrieved by Annex.A7, the petitioner approached the tribunal. The tribunal, after a detailed consideration of the OP(KAT) NO. 105 OF 2024 **==> picture [31 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** issue, dismissed the original application. Hence, this original petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is true that her photograph did not carry the name and date of photograph taken, however, for resolving the same, the PSC had directed her to upload the one and the same certificate, which was complied with. It is also submitted that the petitioner had also applied to the post of Part-Time School Teacher (Hindi) in Kottayam District for Category No.422/2019, in which her entire details were given and the verification was also successfully completed. Hence, there was no justification for the PSC in rejecting her application in respect of Category No.562/2021. It is further submitted that after accepting Annex.A5 One and the Same Certificate, the PSC cannot reject the application stating the same reason. It is also submitted that the identity of the petitioner was verified in Category No.422/2019 and there was no confusion regarding her identity and a common test was conducted by the PSC for both the categories. The learned counsel also relied on a judgment of this Court in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Reshmi K.R. [2019 (5) KHC 875], wherein it has OP(KAT) NO. 105 OF 2024 **==> picture [31 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** been held that mechanical rejection of all applications cannot be done. The learned counsel also pointed out that the decision in Reshmi K.R. (supra) is no longer an authority on the issue pursuant to an apex court decision in Vashist Narayan Kumar v. State of Bihar & Others [2024 SCC OnLine SC 2]. 4. The learned Standing Counsel for the PSC submitted that the issue was elaborately considered by the Full Bench of this Court in Reshmi K.R. (supra) and it was held that, “the instructions regarding the uploading of photographs are provided in the home page of the website, which the candidates are supposed to read carefully before submitting their applications. Any candidate applying for the job shall submit the application strictly in accordance with the instructions”. According to the learned Standing Counsel, as long as the instructions were made known to the candidates properly without any ambiguity and with due clarity, it was incumbent on the candidates to have abided by such instructions strictly and the instructions cannot be modified to suit the convenience of parties on the ground that the intention of stipulating the instruction could be achieved even OP(KAT) NO. 105 OF 2024 **==> picture [31 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** otherwise. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that the case of the petitioner that she was selected in Category No.422/2019 and hence, she should be treated as qualified and eligible to the post of High School Teacher (Hindi) for Malappuram District for Category No.562/2021, is not at all sustainable. It is also submitted that each selection is independent and that the endorsement made in Annex.A4 has no authenticity and that when rules and instructions are clear, it cannot be compelled to be violated. A photograph is a crucial document that cannot be permitted to be defective. An application submitted to one post cannot be transposed to another application for selection to a different post. If the applications are defective, the candidate will not get any right for selection. 5. We have considered the rival submissions raised on both sides. It is an admitted fact that the application filed by the petitioner was defective for not mentioning the name and date of the photo taken. Before applying for a post, it is very relevant for a candidate to read the instructions carefully. On a perusal of Annex.A1 notification, it is seen that Clause 9 refers to the mode of submitting application, wherein it is OP(KAT) NO. 105 OF 2024 **==> picture [31 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** clearly stated that the photograph uploaded should be taken after 31.12.2011 and that the name of the candidate and the date of photograph taken should be printed legibly at the bottom portion. It was also stated that the photograph once uploaded meeting all requirements shall be valid for 10 years from the date of taking the photographs. Hence, some of the basic criteria in submitting the application are the mode of uploading the photo and writing the name and date of photograph taken. The PSC cannot be found fault for rejecting a defective application submitted without carefully reading the instructions. The case of the petitioner is that after noting the defect, she was asked to submit the One and the Same Certificate, which was complied with; and on submission of the said certificate, it was approved by the PSC after verification. However, the PSC does not admit the authenticity of the endorsement made in Annex.A4. Further, the argument of the petitioner that since she was successfully selected in Category No.422/2019 and verification was also done, the PSC ought to have accepted her application in Category No.562/2021 as well, cannot be accepted since each selection is independent. When rules and instructions are clear, it OP(KAT) NO. 105 OF 2024 **==> picture [31 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** cannot be compelled to be violated. As far as the petitioner is concerned, she may think that it is a minor defect and since her application in Category No.422/2019 was found to be perfect in all terms, there is no issue of identification and no logic in not including her in the ranked list in respect of Category No.562/2021. However, it is relevant to note that both categories are for different posts in different districts. Without uploading a proper application in a category, the petitioner cannot ask the PSC to verify and get her details from an application submitted in another category. 6. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Vashist Narayan Kumar (supra) is in respect of selection to the post of Police Constable in the State of Bihar, wherein a candidate, who was from the lowest strata of the society, sought support of the person running a cybercafe for submitting his application. While entering the details, his date of birth was mistakenly shown as “08.12.1997” instead of “18.12.1997” and his candidature was rejected, which was upheld by the High Court of Patna. Aggrieved by this, he approached the apex court; and the apex court, considering the facts of the said case, set aside the judgment of the High OP(KAT) NO. 105 OF 2024 **==> picture [37 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** of Patna and directed the respondents to treat him as a candidate, who passed the selection process with date of birth as “18.12.1997”. It is relevant to note that in Vashist Narayan Kumar (supra), the mistake was committed by a person running the cybercafe, who entered the details of the candidate and it was considering the said fact, the apex court allowed the appeal in favour of the candidate. 7. Here, in this case, the petitioner herself submitted and uploaded the application, but omitted to note the required details in the photograph such as name of the candidate and date of the photograph taken. It was the duty of the petitioner to submit the application properly without committing any error. Getting a government job is a difficult task and only a very few among the candidates are shortlisted and selected. The petitioner ought to have been more cautious while uploading the application and ought to have read and understood the instructions carefully before submitting the application. The doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked in this case since the PSC themselves denied the authenticity of the endorsement made in Annex.A4. If at all, a direction given by one of the officers may not be binding on OP(KAT) NO. 105 OF 2024 **==> picture [37 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** the PSC. Annex.A1 notification is very clear regarding the submission of the application. Therefore, on a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the tribunal. The original petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE Sd/- SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE bka/- OP(KAT) NO. 105 OF 2024 ..12.. ## **APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 105/2024** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** **Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 30.11.2021 FOR SELECTION AND APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER (HINDI) IN MALAPPURAM DISTRICT (CATEGORY NO. 562/2021) ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT** - **Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEARING REGISTRATION NO. Z 102650** - **Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE SHORTLIST SL.NO. 02/2023/DOM OF CAT. NO. 562/2021 DATED 16.01.2023 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT** **Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER MRI-2/4/2020KPSC-DOMLPM DATED 29.03.2023 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT** - **Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE ONE AND SAME CERTIFICATE DATED 05.04.2023 ISSUED BY MR. RIYAS BABU A., HSST (ARABIC), GHSS POKKOTTUPADAM, MALAPPURAM** - **Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE APPLICANT'S PROFILE DOWNLOADED FROM THE ONE TIME REGISTRATION PORTAL OF THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, SHOWING GREEN TICK AGAINST THE ONE AND SAME CERTIFICATE** - **Annexure A7** **TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF PROFILE OF THE APPLICANT IN ONE TIME REGISTRATION PORTAL OF THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION SHOWING THE MESSAGE DATED 28.04.2023.** OP(KAT) NO. 105 OF 2024 ..13.. - **Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT WITH RESPECT TO CATEGORY NO. 422/2019 TO THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, WITH RESPECT TO PART TIME HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER (HINDI) KOTTAYAM DATED 04.02.2020.** - **Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE SECONDARY SCHOOL LEAVING CERTIFICATE D NO. 540750 ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT BY THE GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT FOR THE EXAMINATION CONDUCTED IN MARCH 2004** - **Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF THE AADHAAR CARD OF THE APPLICANT ISSUED BY UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION AUTHORITY OF INDIA BEARING AADHAAR NO. 427507849138.** - **Annexure A11 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE RANKED LIST NO. 753/2023/SSIII WITH RESPECT TO CAT. NO. 422/2019 DATED 26.08.2023 IN KOTTAYAM DISTRICT** - **Annexure A12 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE RANKED LIST NO. 796/2023/SSIII WITH RESPECT TO CAT. NO. 562/2021 (HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER HINDI, MALAPPURAM) DATED 19.09.2023** - **Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF OA (EKM) NO. 689 OF 2023 FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, ERNAKULAM** - **Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 06.06.2023 IN OA (EKM) NO. 689/2023** - **Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 6 AND 7** - **Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPLICANT IN OA (EKM) 689/2023** OP(KAT) NO. 105 OF 2024 **==> picture [37 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** **Exhibit P5** **TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER IN OA (EKM) NO. 689 OF 2023 DATED 19.01.2024 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL**