REJI P. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Original Petition is preferred against the order dtd. 20/10/2016 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A (EKM) No.955 of 2014 filed by the petitioner herein.

(2.) The petitioner was a candidate included in Annexure A1 rank list published by the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) for appointment to the post of Excise Guard in the Excise Department in Malappuram District. The rank list was published on 10/9/2009. The petitioner holds rank No.101 in the main list in Annexure A1. According to the petitioner, the 5th respondent who was ranked above him (rank No.96) and who belonged to Ezhava category relinquished his claim for appointment as per Annexure A2 letter dtd. 10/2/2014 addressed to the District Officer, PSC, the 4th respondent. In Annexure A2, the 5th respondent has stated that he is not interested in joining the post of Excise Guard as he is working as Process Server in the Court at Manjeri. Accordingly, he requested to delete his name from the rank list. However, the District Officer, PSC rejected the relinquishment letter by Annexure A3 dtd. 14/3/2014 on the ground that the signature of the 5th respondent in Annexure A2 is different from his signature in the application. Later, the PSC issued advice memo to the 5th respondent on 19/3/2014 in an Ezhava turn. The 5th respondent did not accept the advice memo or joined duty. The rank list expired on 10/3/2014. According to the petitioner, if Annexure A2 relinquishment letter submitted by the 5th respondent had been accepted by the PSC, the petitioner who is ranked 101 in Annexure A1 would have been advised and appointed to the post of Excise Guard. The petitioner has accordingly filed the Original Application for a declaration that he is entitled to be advised and appointed to the post of Excise Guard in Malappuram District in the vacancy in which the 5th respondent was erroneously advised. A further declaration is sought to the effect that the 4th respondent is liable to accept Annexure A2 relinquishment letter and pass orders deleting the name of the 5th respondent from Annexure A1 rank list and thereby cancel the advice memo issued to the 5th respondent. A direction is also sought to the 4th respondent to advice the petitioner in the vacancy which was advised to the 5th respondent.

(3.) The PSC has filed a Reply Statement in the O.A wherein it is stated that the relinquishment by the 5th respondent could not be accepted since his signature in Annxure A2 relinquishment letter differs from that in his application. The statement refers to Rule 18 (ii) of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure (for short, the 'Rules') and the Guidelines issued by the PSC which provide that the signature and address of the candidate on the request for relinquishment must be verified with reference to those in his/her application for the post, identification certificate etc available in the office to see that they are identical and the request is genuine. If the request is not genuine, it has to be summarily rejected and the fact be intimated to the candidate. It is stated that rejection of request of the 5th respondent for relinquishment was intimated to him and he was advised for recruitment on 19/3/2014 on his turn against a vacancy reported on 5/3/2014. However, he did not join duty. The non-joining duty vacancy was reported to the PSC on 4/6/2014. Since the NJD vacancy was reported after the expiry of the rank list on 10/3/2014, no advice was made. It is stated that while considering a request for relinquishment, the PSC has to make it doubly sure that the candidate himself has submitted the application and the action taken by the PSC is strictly in accordance with the Rules. It is also contended that the rejection of relinquishment will not give any cause of action to the petitioner to challenge the same.