BIAZ S.LAL Vs. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was an applicant to the post of Draftsman (Mechanical) under the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent, Kerala Public Service Commission invited applications for appointment to the said post and the petitioner responded to the same. The petitioner submitted Ext. P2 application through online. However, the said application was rejected on the ground of wrong recording of the name and date on the photograph affixed in the application. It is in the said circumstances that this Writ Petition has been filed challenging the action on the part of the 1st respondent in rejecting Ext. P2 application and challenging Ext. P3 whereby the petitioner was informed regarding the rejection of his application for the aforesaid reasons. The contention of the petitioner is that no such instruction to record the name and date on the photograph affixed in the application was given in Ext. P1 notification. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is that in the absence of such specific instructions in Ext. P1 notification, the 1st respondent is not legally entitled to reject Ext. P2 application and as such, the 1st respondent is liable to restore the application and consider his candidature for the selection to the post of Draftsman (Mechanical) under the 2nd respondent. Per contra, the learned standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that the petitioner is not justified in raising such contentions in the light of the specific instructions given in Ext. P1 itself. To lend support to the said contention the learned counsel brought to my attention instructions No. 8 in Ext. P1 notification regarding the mode of sending application which reads thus:--

(2.) A perusal of Ext. P1 would reveal that in the notification itself it is made clear that detailed instructions regarding the submissions of applications are available in the website of the Kerala Public Service Commission viz. Instructions further carried a caution to the effect that applications submitted not in accordance with the instructions given in the said website would be summarily rejected. It is further contended that the detailed instructions regarding the submissions of applications were available in the website of the Kerala Public Service Commission and it carried specific instructions regarding the requirement to record the name and date on the photograph affixed in the application while responding to Ext. P1 notification. The said fact is not disputed by the petitioner. The learned standing counsel also brought to my attention a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Sasikala T.V. v Kerala Public Service Commission & Anr., 2012 2 KerLT 585. That was a case wherein the requirement to record the name of the applicant and the date on which the photograph was taken, stipulated in the notification itself. The Division Bench considered the impact of the failure to record the name of the applicant and the date on which the photograph was taken. Obviously, the Division Bench negatived the contention that such failure to record the name of the applicant and date on which the photograph was taken is only a minor curable defect and held that the rejection of application for failure to comply with the said direction as legal as it is aimed to prevent impersonation and ensuring fairness in the conduct of examination. True that, in this case in the notification such a requirement is not specifically given. However, incontestably, the above extracted portion from Ext. P1 notification viz., instructions No. 8 would make it abundantly clear that it carried specific instructions to the effect that detailed instructions regarding the submission of application are available in the Kerala Public Service Commission viz. and that applications submitted not in accordance with the instructions given in the website of the Kerala Public Service Commission would be summarily rejected. This contention raised on behalf of the Kerala Public Service Commission remained undisputed. In other words, the petitioner did not have a case that such instructions regarding the submissions of applications were not available on the website of the Kerala Public Service Commission viz. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the decision of the Division Bench in Sasikala's case will apply with equal force in this case, as well, especially, taking note of the fact that such instructions have been given with a view to prevent impersonation and to ensure fairness in the conduct of the examination by the Kerala Public Service Commission. For the foregoing reasons, this Writ Petition is liable to fail and accordingly it is dismissed.