SHAJU. A. Vs. KERALA PUBIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT /writ petitioner, an applicant for direct recruitment to the post of "Reserve Driver" in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC), is in appeal from the judgment of a learned single Judge upholding the rejection of his application by the Kerala State Public Service Commission (PSC). PSC, which was the recruiting agency for the KSRTC, had published a notification dated 15.7.2010 inviting applications for recruitment to the post. The notification, produced as Exhibit P1, clearly stipulated that the driving licence should be a current one on the date of application. The last date of application notified in Exhibit P1 was 18.08.2010. The appellant applied for the post, despite his having no valid driving licence as on the last date of application. Admittedly, the appellant's driving licence expired on 9.1.2008 and it was got renewed only on 9.3.2011. The PSC, hence, rejected the application of the appellant for reason of his having no valid driving licence at the time of application.

(2.) APPELLANT was before this Court with a writ petition, which was considered by the learned single Judge along with various other writ petitions filed against the rejection of applications for the very same recruitment, but for similar or different reasons. The entire controversy was with respect to an 'erratum notification' published by the PSC on 15.11.2010, wherein it was specified that the "candidates shall possess Current Driving Licence on the last date for receipt of application/Practical Test/Interview". This was so in the English version of the notification. However, the Malayalam version would indicate that the stipulation was that such valid driving licence should be held by an applicant on the last date for receipt of application, as also practical test/interview. It was the contention of the PSC before the learned single Judge that the erratum notification was one which stipulated the condition of holding a valid driving licence on all the said dates. The learned single Judge having considered the issue elaborately as also the binding precedents on the issue, held that the judicial declarations would clearly show that the recruiting agency cannot change the "rules of the game" after the initiation of the selection procedure by the recruiting agency. Considering the issue of whether the recruiting agency could bring in more onerous conditions and increase the rigour of basic qualification; the learned single Judge rejected the contention of the PSC and held that such rigour cannot be brought in after the initial notification was published.

(3.) THE appellant would rely on Exhibit P14 to contend that the Government has issued clarification conferring powers on the PSC to change the qualifications, method of appointment, etc. after the issuance of the notification in cases where changes announced amount to concessions or exemptions granted to persons already included in the ranked list. The learned counsel for the appellant would also urge that English version with "slashes" between the words "last date for receipt of application", "practical test" and "interview" would indicate that the prescription of holding a valid driving licence is to be satisfied on either of these dates and not on all of these dates. The same being a concession, it is the contention that the PSC was well within its powers to grant such concessions.