KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Vs. VARGHESE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Kerala Public Service Commission which was the sole Respondent in Original Petition No. 1769 of 1974 is the Appellant herein. The appeal is against the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court on a petition by three Junior Assistants of the Kerala State Electricity Board quashing Exhibits P-1 to P-3 orders passed by the Kerala Public Service Commission rejecting the application of the Petitioners for appearing for a departmental test and directing the Public Service Commission to declare results of the tests held on 17th April 1974 for which the Petitioners were allowed to appear on the strength of an interim order passed by this Court when the Original Petition was pending. The three Petitioners desired to sit for the departmental test for the Executive and Ministerial Staff of the Kerala State Electricity Board 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. It is said that the Petitioners 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 applications 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 Rule 94 of the Treasury Code Vol. I. Accordingly after 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 accompanied in the case of the three applications these applications were rejected by the Public Service Commission. Against such rejection representations were made by the Petitioners but apprehending that this may not serve any useful purpose, the Petitioners approached this Court. They obtained interim orders permitting them to sit for the test subject to the withholding of the result. They sat for the test but the results have not been published as that would be subject to the result of the Original Petition. According to the Petitioners the loss of the original chalan receipts was due to circumstances beyond their control and so they did the best under the circumstances namely produced certificates of payment. In the circumstances, according to them, the Public Service Commission ought to have acted upon such certificates and entertained the applications of the Petitioners. When the case came up for hearing the Public Service Commission was not ready with a counter-affidavit and the learned Single Judge disposed of the case without such counter. The learned Judge was of the view that since the certificates have been issued on the strength of Rule 94, in such cases instead of being hypertechnical, it was necessary that the Public Service Commission should take a more practical view of the issue involved. The learned Judge further observed that:

(2.) It cannot be said and it is not said -- that the Public Service Commission has no power to prescribe the condition that applications should be accompanied by the original chalan receipts. There is considerable difference between the production of the original chalan receipt and a certificate showing payment, for there will be only one original chalan receipt and there can be any number of certificates showing payment. Therefore if the Public Service Commission insists upon accompaniment of the original chalan receipt it cannot be said to be a requirement unreasonably specified by the Public Service Commission. It is not for this Court to go into this question further. If the Public Service Commission has prescribed this as a requirement, non-compliance therewith must result in rejection. The Public Service Commission cannot be expected to investigate further in a case where the application is not in compliance with the requirements notified to find out whether, nevertheless, the applicant should be permitted to sit for the test. We must not forget the fact 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 a 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. We do not think that it is fair to interfere in these matters unless it is shown that has been malafides in the conduct of 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. Of course the Public Service Commission has certainly power in appropriate cases to look into such matters and entertain applications if it finds that the circumstances justify such entertainment. But that discretion must be left to the Public Service Commission and the Public Service Commission cannot be compelled to exercise such discretion in any given cases. The direction to declare the results of the tests as the Petitioners are concerned appears to us with great respect to the learned single Judge, to be not justified by the circumstances of the case. Of course notwithstanding our decision in this appeal it is open to the Public Service Commission to consider the cases of the Petitioners, keeping in mind what the learned Judge has said about the circumstances resulting in the default. But we do not think any direction should be issued to the Public Service Commission in that behalf.

(3.) The result is that the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the learned single Judge is vacated and the petition stands dismissed subject to what we have stated in this judgment. In the circumstances of the case we direct the parties to suffer costs in this appeal as well as in the Original Petition before the learned single Judge. *A reproduction from ILR (Kerala Series)