KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Vs. SASIKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Kerala Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "PSC") is in appeal from the judgment of the learned Single Judge, setting aside the proposal to remove the respondent/writ petitioner's name from the rank list. The decision to remove the name of the respondent from the rank list was made since the respondent's Driving Licence expired during the selection process and was renewed only after three months. The finding of the learned Single Judge was that erratum notification was not applicable and that the requirement that the candidate has a current valid licence on the date of application was satisfied in the instant case. The PSC assails the same as against the binding precedents of this Court in W.A.No.951 of 2012, W.A.No.2274 of 2012 and the decision reported in Maheen v. State of Kerala, 2013 3 KerLT 639.

(2.) The learned counsel for the respondent however, contends that this Court, in W.A.No.951 of 2012 and W.A.No.2274 of 2012, was concerned with instances where the applicants did not have a valid Driving Licence as on the date of application. Maheen was also sought to be distinguished by pointing out that in paragraph 4 the learned Judges have specifically noticed that in that case there was no challenge either to the notification issued by the Public Service Commission or to the relevant recruitment rules. In the instant case the respondent complied with Exhibit P1 notification, i.e., he had a current Driving Licence on the date of application, i.e., on 19.07.2010 when he preferred the application. The learned counsel for the respondent contends that his licence expired on 04.08.2010 and the last date of application as per Exhibit P1 was 18.08.2010 and if that had been the stipulation, he definitely would have got his licence renewed and then made the application. The learned counsel would also point out that even going by the erratum notification he had a valid licence on all the other specified dates as per the notification except the last date for application. There was no disqualification on the applicant for the reason that his licence expired on 04.08.2010 and was only renewed on 09.11.2010. Any other interpretation, according to the learned counsel for the respondent, would be against what a reasonable prudent man would understand from the notification and would further do violence to the valuable rights conferred on the respondent under Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel very vehemently contends that this Court cannot take such an interpretation, especially in the context of that interpretation interfering with the valuable right of equal opportunity for employment guaranteed under the Constitution of India.

(3.) Though precedents have been placed before us, in view of the strenuous arguments placed by the respondent, we think it fit to dilate first on the facts. Exhibit P1 notification contains a stipulation that: