SHAJAHAN S Vs. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 38723/2010. The 1st respondent Kerala Public Service Commission by Ext.P1 notification invited application for appointment to the post of Peon/Watchman in various District Co-operative Banks, 50% of the post of Peon in the District Co-operative Banks is reserved for the employees in any of the Primary Co-operative Societies under the District Co-operative Bank. Remaining 50% is to be filled up by open recruitment. The appellant is working as a Peon in the Adichanalloor Fanners Service Co-operative Bank, a Primary Co-operative Society affiliated to the Kollam District Co-operative Bank. The appellant, responding to Ext.P1, submitted an application, copy of which was produced by the 1 "respondent as Ext.R1 (a), for appointment in the service quota. In Ext.P1, the category number is shown as 177/2007. In Ext.R1 (a), though the appellant mentioned that the application was for appointment from among employees of affiliated member Primary Co-operative Societies and it was also specifically mentioned that the appellant was working as peon in Adichanalloor Farmers Co-operative Bank. But in the column for category number, as against 177/2007, the appellant had entered 176/2007. It is submitted that category number 176/2007 is relating to direct recruitment. The 1st respondent after processing the applications, responding to Ext.R1(a), issued Ext.P2 admission ticket inviting the appellant to appear for a written examination on 21.2.2009. In Ext.P2, the category number is correctly shown as 177/2007. It was also mentioned that the post to which the test was conducted is. "Peon/Watchman Post II By transfer". The appellant appeared for the written examination. According to him, he was qualified by securing 52% marks. But, when the shortlist was published, the name of the appellant was found missing. On 14.12.2010 he filed Ext.P3 representation before the 2nd respondent requesting to have his name included in the shortlist By Ext.P4, in response to Ext.P3, the 2nd respondent informed the appellant that in his application the category number was shown as 176/2007, which is relating to direct recruitment Therefore, in the light of circular number 13/2009, copy of which was produced as Ext.P5, his application was rejected. Alleging that Ext.P4 is vitiated by illegality and arbitrariness, the petitioner filed the Writ Petition seeking an order to quash Ext.P4 and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to include his name in the shortlist. An Under Secretary attached to the Regional Office of the 1st respondent at Ernakulam filed an affidavit reiterating the stand of the respondents specifically stating that in the columns regarding the category, the entry was 176/2007 and that Ext.P2 admission ticket was issued before processing the application form and that the appellant was only permitted to provisionally participate in the examination and that would not confer any right on the appellant and that the application was duly rejected because of the misquoting of the category and that this Court in Neena v. Public Service Commission,2010 1 KerLT 258 and other decisions had held that the Service Commission is entitled to reject an application wherein final decision regarding the acceptance of the candidature had not been taken based on Ext.P5 circular. It was further stated that there was no provision to correct a mistake or to rectify a defect committed by the candidate in the application submitted by him/her and that it would be extremely difficult and time consuming for Commission to discharge their functions if the Commission were to spend their time and resources in making such enquiries and that if such a request for correction of such defective applications is entertained, it will lead to total disruption in the working of the Commission thereby resulting in unnecessary delay in completion of the selection process. Referring to the decision in T. Jayakumar v. A. Gopu and Another, 2008 9 SCC 403, it was stated that wrong entry of category number assigned for a post, tantamount to stating that the candidate has not applied for that particular post. It was further stated that Ext.P4 is no way vitiated by any illegality, impropriety or arbitrariness and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

(2.) The learned Single Judge accepting the contention raised by the petitioner and following the decision in Neena's case and two other unreported decisions, by the impugned judgment dated 22.8.2011 dismissed the petition. Now this appeal.

(3.) We have heard Adv. Sri. B. Mohanlal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Adv. Sri. P.C. Sasidharan, the learned standing counsel for the respondents and perused the records. The facts stated above were not at all disputed. Therefore, the only question that remains for adjudication is whether Ext.P4 is vitiated and liable to be set aside. It is specifically mentioned in Ext.P4 that the application of the appellant is rejected on the basis of Ext.P5 circular. Ext.P5 circular dated 29.5.2009 was issued in suppression of circular No. 2/2006 dated 21.12.2005. A careful reading of Ext.P5 would show that by circular No. 2/2006 referred therein the Commission had taken a decision that cases, where category number and name of posts were mutually erred, can be considered on the basis of the name of post. The relevant portion of Ext.P5 reads: