LOVELY VARGHESE Vs. K.P.S.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a case where the Kerala Public Service Commission had invited applications for selection of posts of Assistant Engineers (Electrical) in the Kerala State Electricity Board by notification in the Gazette, dated 15th December, 1981. The last date fixed for the receipt of application was 27th January 1982. The petitioner submitted two applications before the Public Service Commission. One application was submitted for considering the petitioner for appointment to the post in the Departmental quota and the other application for the open merit quota. It would appear that these applications which had sent by registered post on 22nd January, 1982 were received by the Deputy Secretary of the Public Service Commission, who receives such registered applications on 29th January, 1982. This was beyond the time fixed for receipt of the applications and therefore the applications were rejected.

(2.) The petitioner made a representation to the Commission in the matter to consider the circumstances she pointed out that she had sent the applications sufficiently early viz. on 22nd January, 1982 and the petitioner is not responsible for the delay and therefore her applications should be considered to have been received in time. The Commission did not accept this. What the petitioner contends is that the cardinal principle that the rules are made to serve the proper functioning of the scheme and that rule should not work injustice by destroying the very purpose for which the rules are made, has not been taken note of by the Commission. It is submitted that the discretion has to be exercised always reasonably and when it is not exercised reasonably the courts have always power to correct any administrative authority. The petitioner quotes Lord Coke:

(3.) The Public Service Commission has taken up the position that in the nature of its powers it will not be possible for the Commission to take into account belated applications. Now the question has come up for consideration in some earlier cases as to how far the Commission is bound by prescribed rules of procedure and whether an application, not in conformity with the rules could be taken into consideration. In Kerala Public Service Commission v. Varghese ( ILR 1977 (1) Ker. 523 ), a Rivision Bench of this Court consisting of Justice Subramonian Poti, as he then was, and Justice George Vadakkel said that it cannot be said that the Public Service Commission has no power to prescribe the condition regarding receipt of applications. When the Public Service Commission insists upon the prescription of the rules regarding the receipt of applications, it is not for this court to go into this question further. If the Commission has prescribed something, its non compliance must result in rejection. In that case what happened was the petitioner therein desired to sit for departmental test for the Executive and Ministerial Staff of the Kerala State Electricity Board which was held in April 1974 in order to seek promotion from the post of Junior Assistants held by them to that of Senior Assistants. In order to sit for the examination the petitioners had to remit certain amount into the Treasury and the Original Chalan receipts had to be produced along with the application before the Office of the Public Service Commission. The petitioners had paid their examination fee towards the close of the period fixed for sending application and for want of time the first petitioner thought of directly submitting the application before the Office of the Kerala Public Service Commission at Trivandrum. For that purpose he was on his way in the bus but then he found that he had lost his diary, a diary in which the original chalan receipts were kept. On discovering this he is said to have immediately returned to Thodupuzha Sub Treasury and requested for issue of duplicate copies of the three chalan receipts relating to payment by three petitioners. He was told that there was no provision to issue duplicate chalan receipts and what they could do to evidence payment was only to issue certificates as envisaged in R.94 of the Treasury Code Vol. I. Thereafter taking certificates evidencing the payments the applications were submitted to the Office of the Public Service Commission. Since the condition required by the notification of the Public Service Commission for a proper application to be made was not accompanied in the case of the three applications, these applications were rejected by the Public Service Commission. This court said that a body like the Public Service Commission is dealing with several thousands of applications and in screening these applications with a view to reject such of those as are not in accordance with the requirements notified, the Clerical Staff of the Commission will have to be depended upon to do the job. The direction to entertain or reject applications ought not to be conferred on such staff lest it may lead to abuse. Therefore it is only proper that the Public Service Commission lays down rules and directs strict enforcement of such rules. To expect the Public Service Commission either as a body or any of the members authorised in that behalf by the Commission to scrutinise all applications with a view to ascertain compliance with the requirements specified and investigate into the circumstances which result in default of compliance would be to expect the impossible. It is not fair to interfere in these matters unless it is shown that there has been mala fides in the conduct for the Commission or any of its officers in the matter of rejecting application or there has been callousness or disregard of its own directions. If the circumstances indicate only a rejection of an application for non compliance with the requirements specified by its own notification merely because this Court feels it is unfortunate that the application happened to be rejected it may not be fair for this Court to direct the Public Service Commission to entertain the application.