SREEJESH VIJAYAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner's application was rejected by the Public Service Commission and his name was removed from the short list on the ground that the photograph uploaded along with the application did not carry the name of the applicant and the date on which that photograph was taken. The notification requires that the name of the applicant and the date on which the uploaded photograph is taken are to be inscribed on that photograph. The P.S.C.'s notification prescribes that the photograph, which is uploaded, should be taken within a particular time span fixed in that notification with reference to date. The petitioner herein having chosen to take recourse to judicial process for redressal of his grievances, we do not find any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the learned Tribunal having applied the ratio of Sasikala T.V. v. K.P.S.C., 2012 2 KerLT 585). The learned counsel for the petitioner made reference to the decisions in Ushakumari v. State of Kerala, 2013 4 KerLT 11 and in W.P.(C). Nos. 10989 and 10991 of 2012 referred to in Ushakumari's case. The judgment in W.P.(C). Nos. 10989 and 10991 of 2012 clearly shows that the learned Judge did not proceed to lay down any principle of law, after having noted that the defects pointed out cannot be brushed aside as immaterial. The learned Judge had taken a lenient view, as stated in that judgment, to direct that the applications of the petitioners in those cases be considered. We further find that the Ushakumari's case is decided relying on the judgment in W.P.(C). Nos. 10989 and 10991 of 2012 without stating any further principle of law. We deem it appropriate to now point out that as stated in Sasikala's case , the whole object sought to be achieved is to ensure not only transparency, but also to exclude the possibility of any allegation as to impersonation. It has to be remembered that such allegations can come against the P.S.C. and the process of examination and selection, even after the selection process is over. It was, therefore, that the view expressed in W.P.(C). No. 17767 of 2011 was affirmed in Sasikala's case .