SOBHA M K Vs. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had applied for selection to the post of Clerk/Cashier in District Co-operative Banks pursuant to a notification issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission ('the PSC' for short). Ext.P1 is the notification issued by the PSC in this connection. As per the terms of Ext.P1 notification, applications were to be submitted online through the web portal of the PSC, after a one time online registration. The applicants were required to furnish their personal particulars in the one time online registration module. They were also required to upload their photograph after writing their name and the date on which the name is written on it. The petitioner applied for selection after the one time registration as required by the terms of the notification. Though the petitioner was permitted to undertake the written test conducted by the PSC pursuant to her application, her application was rejected later as per Ext.P3 communication stating that the name and date written by the petitioner on the photograph uploaded in the web portal of the PSC are not legible. Ext.P3 is under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the only requirement in the notification is that the candidate shall write his name and date on the photograph to be uploaded while making the one time online registration. It is stated that the petitioner has written her name and date on the photograph uploaded and there is no dispute to the said fact. According to the learned counsel, there is no standard prescribed in the notification for the clarity required for the endorsements on the photographs. It is pointed out that in the absence of any specification as to the clarity, the conduct of the PSC in rejecting the application is wholly arbitrary. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC, relying on the decision of this Court in Sasikala v. Kerala Public Service Commission, 2012 2 KerLT 585, contended that the issue is covered against the petitioner by the said decision.