(1.) The challenge against rejection of applications by the Kerala Public Service Commission ('PSC' for short) in its recruitment process has been a very frequent phenomenon in this Court. Though instructions are provided to the candidates along with the notifications issued by the PSC regarding the manner in which applications are to be filled up, submitted or uploaded on the computer, candidates often commit mistakes that entail serious consequences including rejection of their candidature causing severe heartburn and despair in the minds of such persons. Such candidates would then approach this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for relief. These cases also relate to such rejection of applications. A Division Bench of this Court noticed that there was some confusion in the matter, in view of the decision in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Roshini (ILR 2016 (1) Ker. 99). In the said case, though the candidates were to have uploaded photographs of the size mentioned in the instructions, they uploaded stamp size photographs. For the said reason, their applications were rejected. The said action was challenged before this Court. The learned Single Judge considered the contentions of the writ petitioner as well as the PSC, found that though the photographs uploaded were not of the specified dimensions, they were sufficient to identify the candidate. Since the purpose of uploading photographs was to identify the candidate, it was found that, there was substantial compliance with the stipulations and therefore the rejection of their candidature was held to be unjustified. Though the judgment of the learned Single Judge was the subject matter of W.A. No. 399 of 2015 at the instance of the PSC, the Division Bench declined to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. However, the said dictum has been found to be in conflict with the decision in Rangaswamy v. KPSC (1982 KLT 574) by the Bench. The Division Bench in its reference order further noticed that the decision in Roshini's case was at variance with the consistent dicta in a number of previous decisions. In view of the confusion noticed, the Division Bench has framed four questions for being decided by a Larger Bench. It is accordingly that, the captioned cases have been posted before us.
(2.) The questions referred to us by the Division Bench are the following:
(3.) We have heard Sri P.C. Sasidharan, the learned Legal Retainer for Kerala Public Service Commission ('PSC' for short), Adv. Kaleeswaram Raj, Adv. K.T. Syam Kumar and Adv. Krishna Menon, the learned Counsel for the party respondents in these cases.
ABOUT US "REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD." is a Company incorporated in 1991 under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Since its inception to 1995, the Company was busy in carrying out the activities related to various Banks' Job Work..
Read More
Sales: sales@the-laws.com
Support: info@the-laws.com
8000853936
9376168072
27, 4TH FLOOR, Agrawal Center, Ashram Road, Income Tax, Ahmadabad 380014.
LOGIN