Sridevi Vijayan v. Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.** **FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 24TH ASWINA, 1942** ## **OP(KAT).No.187 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA (EKM) 134/2019 DATED 12-02-2020 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **PETITIONER:** **SRIDEVI VIJAYAN AGED 32 YEARS D/O. VIJAYAN V., RESIDING AT PULARI, UDINUR (P.O), KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN-671 310.** **BY ADVS. SHRI.JAWAHAR JOSE SMT.CISSY MATHEWS SRI.JAISON ANTONY** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 004.** **2 THE DISTRICT OFFICER KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE, KASARAGOD, PIN-671 121.** OP(KAT) No.187/2020 -:2:- **3 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, INDUSTRIAL TRAINING DEPARTMENT (UNDER THE LABOUR AND SKILSS DEPARTMENT), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.** **4 VRINDA A.S. RESIDING AT ANUGRAHA, VALLIAL PADIKKAL, KOTTAMPARAMBA (P.O), CALICUT, PIN-673 008.** - **5 KRISHNA S. KURUP VISHNU MADAM, KARICODE, KOLLAM, PIN-691 005.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.SADCHITH.P.KURUP R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH, SR GOVT.PLEADER** **THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-10-2020, THE COURT ON 16-10-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** OP(KAT) No.187/2020 -:3:- ## **J U D G M E N T** Dated this the 16[th] day of October, 2020 ## _**Shaffique, J.**_ The applicant in OA (EKM) No. 134/2019 has preferred this original petition dissatisfied with the order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the Original Application. 2. The applicant/petitioner was a candidate who applied for the post of Junior Instructor (Fashion Technology) in the Industrial Training Department based on a notification issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission (for short 'KPSC') on 15/11/2012. She was issued with an admission ticket and had appeared for the written examination. She was included as a successful candidate as per Annexure A4 list. When she appeared for verification of the documents on 3/11/2018, it was noticed that the name and date given on the profile photograph was not visible. She was asked to upload the photograph again. That apart, the address given by her in her Aadhar card and uploaded application were different. She was directed to produce a OP(KAT) No.187/2020 -:4:- certificate from the Village Officer stating that the applicant and the person named in the Aadhar card is one and the same person. The applicant uploaded the photograph again from the office of the KPSC at Kasaragod on 14/11/2018. She also produced the certificate issued by the Village Officer, Udinur evidencing that she is the same person named in the Aadhar card. But later, on 11/12/2018, she was informed that her application was rejected as her name and date on the profile photograph were not visible. She submitted Annexure A9 representation to the KPSC, which came to be rejected as per letter dated 26/12/2018. 3. Petitioner therefore filed the Original Application and by an interim order dated 17/1/2019, she was provisionally permitted to participate in the interview. But she was not selected in the final ranked list which was published on 13/2/2019. The person who got the 1[st] rank secured only 42 marks in the written examination whereas the applicant got 45 marks. She therefore filed an application seeking for a direction to include her in appropriate place in the rank list. An interim order was passed on 6/3/2019 clarifying that the advice and OP(KAT) No.187/2020 -:5:- appointment, if any, made will be subject to final orders in the original application **.** The contention urged by the applicant/petitioner was that there were technical defects in the website of KPSC, on account of which she was unable to upload the details correctly. The KPSC took up a contention that detailed scrutiny was not feasible before the OMR test and the scrutiny was done only at the time of verification of the records in order to include the candidates in the shortlist. It is contended that name and date in the photograph uploaded by the candidate were not clear and legible and was not in accordance with the directions of the Commission. The application was therefore rejected. Reference is made to paragraph 27 of the General Conditions Part II, which stipulates that application which did not confirm to the terms and conditions given in the notification and the directions in the website of the KPSC are liable to be rejected. The Tribunal after considering the respective contentions observed that in so far as the last date for submission of application was 19/12/2012, KPSC cannot be expected to accept the application based on a document uploaded by the applicant 6 years later. Accordingly, the application was dismissed. OP(KAT) No.187/2020 -:6:- 4. Before this Court, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of KPSC. It is stated that on the OTR verification of the candidates included in the short list, the application of the petitioner was rejected since the name and date printed in the photo uploaded by the petitioner was not clear or legible which is against the instructions issued by the Commission. Ext.R1(a) is the instruction regarding One Time Registration. There was yet another link regarding instructions for uploading of photo. It is pointed out that similar instructions were available in the Public Service Commission‘s Bulletin as well, which is produced as Ext.R1(c). Such instructions were repeatedly provided in the PSC Bulletin dated 15.11.2012 which is produced as Ext.R1(d). It is pointed out that the applicant has uploaded defective photograph without name and date, which is produced as Ext.R1(e). She uploaded yet another photograph with name and date on 6/11/2018, which is produced as Ext.R1(f), which contains all the details necessary for identifying her. It is therefore the contention of KPSC that in order to consider the petitioner for the post, the photograph as existing in her profile on the last date of submitting the application for the post should be attached to the OP(KAT) No.187/2020 -:7:- application. It is also denied that the Commission had allowed her to cure the defective photograph and thereafter her application was rejected. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner however would submit that during 2012, there was some technical failure in the web portal of the Commission. It is pointed out that a candidate cannot upload the application without skipping any of the required information. The learned counsel also placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in _**Kerala Public Service Commission v. Rajan K.R.**_ [MANU/KE0909/2016]. That was a case in which a batch of cases were decided. The issue related to defects in the online applications submitted by the applicants for the post of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector pursuant to notification dated 26/12/2014. The contention urged by the applicants was that the format provided by the KPSC was defective. There was no column to show the experience and also possession and particulars of driving licence as on the last date of submission of application. Taking into account the factual aspects relating to the said case, it was observed that the software installed by KPSC at the time of implementing the One OP(KAT) No.187/2020 -:8:- Time Registration (OTR) in the year 2012 was not adequate enough to have included all the particulars in the profile and to enable the candidates to submit the application for different posts, based on the qualifications notified and to reject the application showing as ineligible if proper updation was not effected on time. It was further indicated that the position has undergone a sea change after the upgradation of software effected in the year 2015. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that the stipulations insisted by the KPSC has to be strictly complied with by the candidates and if there is failure to do so, nothing prevents the KPSC to reject the said application. The said position is clear from the Full Bench decision in _**Kerala Public Service Commission v. Reshmi K.R**_ (2019 (1) KLT Online 3326). We do not think it necessary to elaborate on the said fact. 7. In the case on hand, the contention urged by the petitioner is that the software developed by the KPSC during 2012 was not sufficient enough and it is presumably on account of a technical error in the software that the petitioner was unable to upload the details, which are treated to be deficient by the OP(KAT) No.187/2020 -:9:- KPSC. But in OP (KAT) No. 374/2015, the issues involved were totally different. Of course, there also the candidates would have used the very same software. But the deficiency pointed out was that there was no column for including experience and particulars of driving licence which was mandatory for the purpose of considering the applications. That is not the situation here. In the case on hand, clear instructions have been given to upload the One Time Registration, including uploading of photographs. It was also specifically stated that the candidate‘s name and the date on which the photograph was taken, should be printed below the photograph itself. Ext.R1(e) is the application uploaded by the candidate, where the name is not clear and the date on which the photograph was taken is not mentioned. The counsel submits that without entering such details, the candidates could not have uploaded the online application. Though such a contention had been urged, there is no material to arrive at a conclusion that there was any deficiency on the part of the system in not accepting such details. A mere argument to that extent will not suffice. Several applicants had applied during the relevant time and none had raised a similar complaint. The fact OP(KAT) No.187/2020 -:10:- remains that, the application of the petitioner had been uploaded and though the name is seen recorded, there is no clarity in the name and the date of taking the photograph is conspicuously absent. Tribunal was therefore justified in dismissing the application. Under such circumstance, we do not think that anything further survives to be considered in the present original petition. Original petition is hence dismissed. **Sd/-** **A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE** **Sd/-** Rp **GOPINATH P. JUDGE** OP(KAT) No.187/2020 ## -:11:- ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.2.2020 IN O.A(EKM) NO.134/2019 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, ADDITIONAL BENCH AT ERNAKULAM.** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ORIGINAL APPLICATION TOGETHER WITH THE DOCUMENTS.** - **ANNEXURE A1** - **TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 15.11.2012 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.** - **ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UPLOADED BY THE APPLICANT IN THE WEB-PORTAL OF THE IST RESPONDENT CONSEQUENT TO ANNEXURRE-A1 NOTIFICATION.** ## **ANNEXURE A3** - **TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO APPEAR FOR THE WRITTNE EXAMINATION ON 15.9.2017.** ## **ANNEXURE A4** - **TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT-LIST OF THE SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES PUBLISHED BY THE IST RESPONDENT ON 15.10.2018 WITH SERIAL NO.91/18/ER XIII.** - **ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT-OUT OF THE MESSAEGES SENT TO THE APPLICANT BY THE IST RESPONDENT WHICH WAS DOWNLOADED FROM THE APPLICANT'S PROFILE INBOX.** ## **ANNEXURE A6** - **TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT-OUT OF THE RELEVANT PAGE IN THE APPLICANT'S PROFILE SHOWING HER PHOTOGRAPH WHICH WAS DOWNLOADED FROM THE APPLICANT'S PROFILE INBOX.** -:12:- OP(KAT) No.187/2020 - **ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 13.11.2018 BEARING NUMBER 36515657 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, UDINUR.** - **ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT-OUT OF THE DOCUMENTS UPLOADED BY THE APPLICANT CONSEQUENT TO THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE IST RESPONDENT WHICH WAS DOWNLOADED FROM THE PROFILE OF THE APPLICANT.** - **ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13.12.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE IST RESPONDENT.** - **ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.** - **ANNEXURE 11 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERVIEW CARD ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO MRS. SAYI P.P. TO APPEAR FOR THE INVERVIEW ON 18.1.2019 BEARING NO.GRIX(3)1719/12/GW.** - **ANNEXURE 12 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERVIEW CARD ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO MRS. NIKHILA K. TO APPEAR FOR THE INTERVIEW ON 23.1.2019 BEARING NO.GIRX(3)1719/12/GW.** - **ANNEXURE 13 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA REPORTED IN 1999 KHC 372.** - **ANNEXURE A14 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.11.2014 IN WPC NO.26937/2014 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.** - **ANNEXURE A15 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 7.8.2015 IN W.A.NO.399/2015 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.** - **ANNEXURE 16 TRUE COPY OF THE PRINTOUT OF THE MARKS OF THE APPLICANT OBTAINED FROM THE WEBSITE OF IST RESPONDENT DATED NIL.** OP(KAT) No.187/2020 -:13:- - **ANNEXURE 17** - **TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 4.1.2019 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DIRECTING THE APPLICANT TO ATTEND FOR THE INTERVIEW ON 23.1.2019.** - **ANNEXURE A18 TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST OF ALL THE SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES PUBLISHED BY THE IST RESPONDENT WITH EFFECT FROM 13.2.2019 DATED NIL.** ## **ANNEXURE A19** - **TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT CHART PUBLISHED BY THE IST RESPONDENT ON 20.3.2019.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.** - **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT R1 A** - **TRUE COPY OF THE HOME PAGE OF PSC WEB PORTAL SHOWING THE LINK TO 'INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING ONE TIME REGISTRATION'.** **EXHIBIT R1 B** - **TRUE COPY OF THE INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING THE UPLOADING OF PHOTOGRAPH AS PROVIDED IN THE LINK ALONG WITH INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING ONE TIME REGISTRATION.** - **EXHIBIT R1 C** **TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF PSC BULLETIN DATED 01/01/2012.** - **EXHIBIT R1 D TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF PSC BULLETIN DATED 15/11/2012.** - **EXHIBIT R1 E TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT R1 F TRUE THE ENTRIES IN THE PROFILE OF THE PETITIONER BOTH ORIGINAL AND ONE MADE SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE PROFILE.**