BIJU N. Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in O.A No.2349 of 2013 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal has filed this Original Petition, challenging Ext.P1 order dismissing the Original Application. The petitioner had submitted an application for selection and appointment to the post of Sub Inspector of Police (Trainee), in Police (General Executive Branch). As per the notification issued by the 3rd respondent - Kerala Public Service Commission, there were 3 categories of applicants who were eligible to apply for selection. The first category, No.315/2007, was for direct recruitment from the open market. 80% of the posts were reserved for such recruitment. The second category, No.316/2007, was set apart for selection from among Graduate Ministerial staff of Police and Vigilance Department, Finger Print Experts, Finger Print Searchers of the Finger Print Bureau. The third category, No.317/2007, was set apart for recruitment from among Graduate Police Constables, Head Constables and officers of the respective rank in the Police department. As per a note appended to the notification Annexure-A1 it was stipulated that, persons who are eligible to apply under the categories designated as 316/2007 and 317/07 were free to apply either under the open category or under the particular quota reserved for them. But, there was a prohibition against applying for both the categories. It has been further specified that, the candidates should specify the category to which they were submitting their applications, at the top of the application form and if no mention regarding the category is made, the application would be treated as though it was one submitted for recruitment under the open category, Category-I.

(2.) Though there was a prohibition against applying to more than one category referred to above, it was found after the written examination was conducted that, many candidates had submitted separate applications in more than one category. Consequently, many candidates had submitted applications under 2 categories, though the same was prohibited. In view of the above, the 3rd respondent gave such of those candidates who had applied to more than one category, an opportunity to opt as to which of the 2 categories they would prefer to have their application considered. Accordingly, 45 persons expressed their options. They were considered only to the category of their choice and a rank list was prepared. The petitioner challenges the above procedure adopted by the 3rd respondent.

(3.) According to the petitioner, since Annexure-A1 notification specifically prohibited submission of applications by a candidate to more than one category, the applications of candidates who had applied to more than one category should have been summarily rejected. Having stipulated that a candidate was prohibited from applying for more than one category, it is contended that, it was not open to the 3rd respondent to have watered down the said requirement by permitting the candidates who had violated the terms of the notification to exercise an option. The procedure has caused prejudice to the petitioner and he has, as a consequence, been ranked lower down in the rank list of departmental candidates. Therefore, it was contended that the rank list required to be interfered with.