R. SREEKUMARI Vs. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to the notification issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission (for short, the first respondent) inviting applications for the post of High School Assistants petitioner submitted her application with the requisite documents evidencing her qualifications, age, etc. The case of the petitioner is that she failed to put her signature in the application form quite inadvertently and as her application is otherwise fool-proof the first respondent be directed to permit her to sign her application form. The first respondent rejected the application for want of signature as per Ext. P-1. This is sought to be quashed by the petitioner.

(2.) In the notification inviting applications it is made clear that unsigned applications will be summarily rejected. Certainly first respondent has the power to prescribe conditions with regard to the submission of applications. A condition which is necessary for the due processing of the applications cannot be considered as irrelevant or superfluous. The condition that the application should contain the applicant's signature is not a mere empty formality. That condition cannot be just ignored on the ground that the failure to put signature is only a mere irregularity that can be cured later. It is not possible to hold that the failure to put one's signature in the application form even though due to an inadvertent omission would not materially affect the application. When an application is filled with all details mentioned in the form signature to it assumes importance. Signature is intended to vouch-safe the correctness of the entries made in the application. If signature is not insisted it would, lead to undesirable results. Insistence of signature in an application cannot be characterised as mere ornamental.

(3.) When the notification says that the forms filled should be signed by the applicant it cannot be overlooked especially when it is specific that non compliance would result in the automatic rejection of the application. Obviously this Court cannot give a direction to the first respondent to entertain the defective application on sympathetic consideration. It is not within the realm of this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution to direct the first respondent to accept a defective application. Nor this Court can give advice to the first respondent to be more humane in its approach and show commiseration to the applicants who flouted essential conditions prescribed by it in forwarding applications.