The Kerala Public Service Commission v. Babitha V and Others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar
Mohammed Nias C.P.
Judgment Date: 2022-07-06
Court Decision / Holding: OP(KAT) No.5/2022 allowed; the Kerala Administrative Tribunal’s order dated 22.10.2021 in OA 1344/2020 is set aside; the Commission’s approach, based on the declarations at the time of consideration, is restored; the post-submission correction cannot govern the ranking or inclusion in the OBC list as directed by the Tribunal.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; Tribunal order set aside.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

The Kerala Public Service Commission

Respondents

Babitha V
The State of Kerala
The Director of General Education

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P. C. Sasidharan

Counsels for Respondents

• SRI BIJOY CHANDRAN
• CHANDRASEKHAR P

Case Synopsis & Summary

The case concerns the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) challenging an order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (O.A. No. 1344 of 2020) dated 22 October 2021 in an O.A. filed by Babitha V under OP(KAT) No. 5 of 2022. The PSC had invited applications in 2017 for the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher (Junior) in English. Babitha V submitted an application indicating OBC status, initially recorded as Hindu-Arya in the PSC web portal, and later corrected to Hindu-Araya in the profile. The short-list published on 25 February 2019 placed her in the supplementary OBC list based on the corrected claim. When interview documents were sought, a discrepancy emerged between the application declaration and the portal entry. The Tribunal held that the correction was a typographical error and that the correction could be considered for subsequent selection, directing PSC to include her name in a supplementary OBC list. The High Court reversed, holding that the application must be read in light of the declarations at the time of consideration, and that changes post-entertainment cannot be entertained. It relied on earlier judgments to emphasize the principle that post-submission changes cannot alter the original categorization, and set aside the Tribunal’s order, allowing the OP(KAT). The result is a restoration of the Commission’s position on the applicant’s OBC Hindu Arya/Hindu-Araya status.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (KS&SSR) – Rules 14 to 17Schedule to the KS&SSR (List III)KS&SSR read with AnnexureOBC reservation provisions under KS&SSR

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The PSC contends that Babitha V’s shortlisting and ultimate ranking were based on the declarations as they stood on the date of consideration, and that corrections post-entertainment cannot be invoked to alter the basis of selection. It emphasizes that the classification into Hindu-Arya/Hindu-Araya is a crucial and separate OBC category under KS&SSR, with different reservation implications. The Tribunal erred in treating a post-submission correction as admissible for the original shortlisting and ranking, and erred in directing inclusion in a supplementary OBC list.

Contentions of Respondents

Babitha V and the State argued for treating the post-submission correction as valid and necessary to rectify the mis-entry, so as to place her in the appropriate OBC Hindu-Araya/Hindu Arya category. The respondents asserted that continuity of the corrected declaration should govern eligibility and ranking, and that the Tribunal’s direction would cause different reservation treatment and categories.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
District Officer, KPSC v. Karthikeyan	1989 KHC 18	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that corrections after submission cannot be entertained and that consideration must be based on declarations at the time of application.
Kerala Public Service Commission v. Reshmi K.R. and Others	2019 (5) KHC 875	Positive	Cited to reinforce the principle that claims made after the submission of an application cannot be considered.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.** **WEDNESDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1944** **OP(KAT) NO. 5 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.10.2021 IN OA (EKM) 1344/2020 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.3:** **THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 004, KERALA.** **BY ADV P.C.SASIDHARAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/APPLICANT & RESPONDENT NO.1 & 2:** - **1 BABITHA.V., AGED 31 YEARS D/O. JAYASHEELAN V, MADHAVI SADANAM, CHALIL ROAD, THALASSERY, KANNUR, KERALA-670 102, MOBILE -8943876990.** - **2 THE STATE OF KERALA,** **REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001, KERALA -695 001.** - **3 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, HIGHER SECONDARY WING, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHINAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004, KERALA.** **BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI BIJOY CHANDRAN, BY ADV CHANDRASEKHAR P** **THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** :2: OP(KAT)No.5/2022 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.** The Kerala Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the PSC' for short) is the petitioner herein, aggrieved by the order dated 22.10.2021 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.1344 of 2020. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this OP(KAT) are as follows: The PSC had invited applications for selection to the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher (Junior) (English) in the Kerala Higher Secondary Education Department, through a notification dated 18.08.2017. The last date for submission of applications was 29.09.2017, and the applications had to be submitted through a 'One Time Registration' facility provided in the official website of the Commission. It is not in dispute that the applicant Smt. Babitha V also submitted an application through the portal, in which she had shown her community status as Other Backward Community (OBC). It is relevant to note that at the time of submitting the application through the web portal of the PSC, the registration particulars entered by the :3: OP(KAT)No.5/2022 applicant in the said portal indicated that she belonged to the Hindu 'Arya' community. 3. In the short list that was published by the PSC on 25.02.2019, the applicant Smt.Babitha V was included in the supplementary list of OBC on the basis of her claim in the application that she belonged to the 'Hindu-Arya' community under the OBC category. However, at the time of inviting candidates for the interview, when she was asked to upload the necessary documents certifying her community status, she uploaded a document which indicated that she belonged to the 'HinduAraya' community and also produced a Non Creamy Layer Certificate issued by the Village Officer, Thiruvangad. It is not in dispute that in the meanwhile, the applicant had also corrected her profile in the website of the PSC to read that she belonged to the 'Hindu-Araya' community. The PSC, taking note of the disparity in the certificates subsequently uploaded by the applicant and the declaration that was originally contained in the web portal at the time of entertaining the application, did not include the applicant in the rank list that was published on 10.10.2019. This led the applicant to approach the Tribunal, which passed the order impugned in this OP(KAT). 4. The Tribunal in the order impugned in this OP(KAT), found that :4: OP(KAT)No.5/2022 it was on account of a typographical error that the community status of the applicant had been entered as 'Hindu-Arya' instead of 'Hindu-Araya' in the web portal of the PSC. Assuming that there was no change in the claim with regard to reservation status, the Tribunal found that the stand taken by the PSC that the correction effected by the applicant could be considered only for subsequent selection could not have any justification. The Tribunal went on to hold that the inclusion of the applicant's name in the OBC list was only on the basis that she belonged to the 'Hindu-Araya' community and not on the basis that she belonged to the 'Hindu-Arya' community. The original application was, therefore, allowed, and the deletion of the name of the applicant from the rank list published for the selection to the post of HSST (Junior) (English) was set aside. A direction was also issued to the PSC to include the name of the applicant in the supplementary list for reservation quota of OBC or in any special group of OBC to which the applicant was entitled, taking into consideration her merit in the written test and interview that was conducted. 5. We have heard Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, the learned counsel for the petitioner in this OP(KAT), as also Sri.P.Chandrasekhar, the learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent. We have also heard the learned Government Pleader for respondents 2 and 3. :5: OP(KAT)No.5/2022 6. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we find that while it may be a fact that Smt.Babitha V had in fact, corrected her particulars in the registration site in the web portal of the PSC, to indicate her community status as 'Hindu-Araya', the declaration in the registration site at the time when her application was considered for the short listing showed her community status as 'Hindu-Arya'. The application considered by the PSC, therefore, had to be seen as one containing the declarations in the application form read with the declarations in the registration site, as on the date of consideration of the application. Viewed thus, we find that the declaration of Smt.Babitha V, in her application for the purposes of the notification, had to be seen as one showing her community status as OBC 'HinduArya' instead of OBC 'Hindu-Araya'. While it may appear, as found by the Tribunal, that the error in the declaration was merely a typographical mistake and did not have any significance in the matter of selection, we find that, that is not the case. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the PSC, the processing of the application of Smt.Babitha V could have proceeded only on the assumption that she was to be ranked in a supplementary list drawn up for Hindu OBC Arya. It is relevant to note that in the Schedule to the KS&SSR, which lists out the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward :6: OP(KAT)No.5/2022 Classes in the Kerala State, 'Hindu-Arya' and 'Hindu-Dheevara (Arayan)' are separate entries in List III to the Schedule to the KS&SSR. That apart, the categorisation aforementioned would also be relevant for the application of Rules 14 to 17 of the KS&SSR read with Annexure to the KS &SSR. In other words, depending upon the community status indicated by the applicant, the applicant would feature either in a supplementary list prepared generally for other backward classes or in a supplementary list prepared separately for 'Hindu-Dheevara' community. This, in turn, would result in a differential treatment in the matter of appointment since the turn in which a vacancy arises would also be different for both categories. The percentage of reservations envisaged for both the categories is also different. Thus in our view, the mistake occasioned by Smt.Babitha V, while entering the details in the application forms submitted in connection with the employment notification, was not a mere typographical one that could have been cured, but a crucial one with several ramifications and the Tribunal erred in assuming to the contrary. We also find force in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the judgments in **District Officer, KPSC v. Karthikeyan [1989 KHC 18]** and **Kerala Public Service Commission v. Reshmi K.R and Others [2019 (5) KHC 875]** and the general conditions of the PSC, that claims made subsequent to the submission of an application cannot be :7: OP(KAT)No.5/2022 considered under any circumstances. In our view, on the facts of the instant case, the petitioner cannot be faulted for having refused to consider any correction effected by the candidate subsequent to the entertainment of her application by it. Resultantly, we set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and allow this OP(KAT). Sd/- **A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE** Sd/- **MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. JUDGE** mns :8: OP(KAT)No.5/2022 ## **APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 5/2022** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** - **Exhibit P1** - **TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.(EKM) NO. 1344 OF 2020 WITH ITS ANNEXURES.** - **Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE CERTIFYING THAT SHE HAS APPLIED FOR THE POST OF HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER (JUNIOR) (CATEGORY NO. 246/17) DATED 20.03.2019.** - **Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT LIST SL.NO. 16/2019/ERI, PUBLISHED BY THE KERALA P.S.C. CONTAINING THE REGISTRATION NUMBERS OF THE CANDIDATES ELIGIBLE FOR INTERVIEW, DATED 25.02.2019.** - **Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE SECONDARY SCHOOL LEAVING CERTIFICATE NO. E 061620 ISSUED BY SECRETARY, BOARD OF PUBLIC EXAMINATIONS, KERALA , MARCH, 2005.** - **Annexure A4** - **TRUE COPY OF THE 3RD PAGE OF APPLICANTS FATHERS SECONDARY SCHOOL LEAVING CERTIFICATE.** - **Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE KERALA PSC, NO. GR5-2/50004/2018-KPSC, DATED 30.12.2019.** - **Annexure A6** - **A TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE APPLICANT TO ANNEXURE A5 ISSUED BY KPSC, DATED 06.01.2020.** :9: OP(KAT)No.5/2022 ## **Annexure A7** **TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. GR52/50004/2018-KPSC BY KERALA P.S.C DATED 14.05.2020.** - **Annexure A8** - **TRUE COPY OF ONLINE APPLICATION MADE BY APPLICANT TO THE POST OF HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER -JUNIOR (CATEGORY NO. 246/2017) DATED 2809.2017 (ANNEXURE A8 IS PRODUCED ALONG WITH M.A. (EKM) 1260/2020).** ## **Annexure A9** - **COPY OF THE SCREEN SHOT OF THE MESSAGE DATED 11.03.2019 RECEIVED BY THE APPLICANT IN HER MOBIL PHONE.** - **Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE UNDER SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.** ## **Exhibit P2** - **TRUE COPY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPICATION WITH ANNEXURE A8.** - **Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN ABOVE O.A.** - **Exhibit P4** - **TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPLICANT ALONG WITH ANNEXURE A9 A10.** - **Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. OA(EKM) 1344/2020 DATED 22.10.2021.** **Exhibit P6** - **TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT LIST OF** :10: OP(KAT)No.5/2022 **CANDIDATES PUBLISHED BY THE COMMISSION ON 25/02/2019.** **Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 13/03/2020 ISSUED BY THE COMMISSION.**