BINIMIL K. G Vs. PSC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is an Assistant Gr. II working in the Cochin University office at Ernakulam. She wanted to appear for the Departmental Test Examination held in June, 1996. The last date for receipt of the application was 24.4.1996. Appellant remitted a fee of Rs.40/- in Treasury and sent her application by speed post on 22.4.96. She failed to enclose the chalan receipt along with the application and also the photograph duly attested by the Head of office. Coming to know of those two defects, appellant got prepared another application and her photograph was duly attested by the Head of office and along with the chalan receipt a second application was sent on 24.4.96 by courier service but the same was delivered in the office of the PSC only at 10.30. A.M. on 25.4.96. The PSC informed the appellant that her application was rejected for the reason that it was not accompanied by the chalan receipt and that the photograph was not duly attested by the Head of office. Appellant then made enquiries and came to know that her second application was not considered as it was received by the PSC belatedly. Appellant filed O.P. and she got permission to write the examination by virtue of an interim order passed by the learned single Judge in the O.P. and she appeared for the examination. When the O.P. came up for consideration appellant contended that her application was not liable to be rejected. Learned single Judge rejected this contention and held that the order of rejection passed by the PSC was not liable to be interfered with.

(2.) We heard appellant's counsel and counsel for the PSC Appellant's counsel contended that the notification inviting the application was published in the Gazette but this gazette notification was not published in time and, therefore, the appellant could not get all the details regarding submission of application. It was also contended that the second application submitted by the appellant was accompanied by original chalan receipt and the photograph was duly attested and therefore the PSC should have accepted that application even though it was received in its office on the next day. Counsel for the PSC, however, contended that Ext. P1 rejection order was passed in accordance with rules and that the application submitted by the appellant was received beyond the last date for receipt of application. Our attention was drawn to the two decisions of the Division Bench of this Court reported in Kerala Public Service Commission V. Varghese and others (ILR 1977 (1) Kerala 523 and in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Saroja Nambiar ( ILR 1978 (2) Ker. 241 ).

(3.) The question to be considered is whether the Public Service Commission was justified in rejecting the application. Admittedly, the application was received subsequent to the last date for receipt of the application. That is a valid ground for rejection. Whether the peculiar circumstances of the case warrant condonation of such delay in submitting the application is a matter to be considered. The Public Service Commission is entrusted with the duty of conducting various departmental examinations and also selection of candidates for appointment to various posts. They have to deal with large number of application and when they call notification inviting application, last date is fixed for receipt of such applications. Due to various reasons the candidates may not be in a position to send the application in time. But such delays are not condoned by the PSC If they show any relaxation in such rules it would cause delay in processing application. Moreover, that would pave way to certain undue favouritism to some candidates. Laxity in one case will leave open the flood gate of requests to condone such irregularities or omissions. The Commission with its heavy workload must strictly adhere to the norms set by it. The Commission has been taking a strict view of these matters and the various decisions on the point also would go to show that delay in submitting application is a valid ground for rejecting the application. So also, any violation of the conditions stipulated in the notification is a ground for rejection of the application. The Courts have always taken the stand that in such matters the extraordinary jurisdiction under Art.226 cannot be extended.