ASHOK Vs. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above Original Petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging the rejection of their applications for the post of junior Health 1nspector Grade II in the Health Services Department for the reason that they have applied to the post in more than one District contrary to the instructions in the notification published for the post.

(2.) THE contentions raised by all the writ petitioners are identical on facts. THE following are the important contentions raised by the learned Senior Advocate Mr. T. P. Kelu Nambiar on behalf of the petitioners. His argument was adopted by other learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners, viz. , Mr. Salil Narayanan, Mr. K. P. Dandapani, Mr. P. G. Rajagopalan, Mr. M. V. Bose, Mr. K. Ramakumar, Mr. John Joseph, Mr. K. Radhakrishnan Nair, Mr. G. Prabhakaran, Mr. S. Ramesh and Mr. V. N. Achutha kurup. According to the learned Senior Counsel, under the notification (Ext. P1), the vacancies in the post of Junior Health Inspector Grade II in all the fourteen districts had been notified. It was stipulated in the notification that the application should be addressed to the concerned District Officer of the Kerala State Public Service Commission (for short'the Commission' ). THE petitioners, who possess the qualifications to apply for the post, have applied on time to the District Officers of the Commission of the concerned district the written test for the post in all the fourteen districts was held on one and the same date and each of the petitioners appeared for the written test in one of the districts in respect of which he/she had applied. However, the petitioners were served with a communication from the Commission, in the form of memo of rejection, stating that their applications stand rejected on the ground that each of them had applied to the post in more than one district which, according to the Commission, was tabooed by the Gazette notification for the post. According to Mr. Nambiar - (a) Ext. P1 notification did not stipulate that a candidate for the post could apply only in respect of one district and, therefore, the petitioners had applied pursuant to Ext. P1 and that they did not have the advantage of looking into the Gazette notification. (b) THEy also filed a true copy of the Gazette notification and marked as Ext. P17 in O. P. 13928/1999, wherein there is a Note to the effect that candidates should apply only in respect of one district. (c) It is argued that the newspaper notifications did not prevent applications being sent for more than one district and the Gazette notification does not contemplate rejection of applications on the ground that applications were made for more than one district when the applicant had taken the examination only for one district.

(3.) MR. Kelunambiar submitted that in 1999 (2) KLT 63 the bench has considered the aspect of application being sent by a candidate to more than one district in the case of district-wise selection and that the reason for the restriction is analysed by the Division Bench in para 10 of the judgment and that the facts and features of this case would not come under the reasoning made in the judgment reported in 1999 (2) KLT 63 and that the reasoning is on the contemplation of a situation where a candidate applying from more than one district, takes the test also from more than one district arguing further, it is submitted that in the present case, the test is conducted for all the districts on one and the same date and candidates applying from different districts could take the examination only from one district and that the difficulties envisaged in the judgment cannot arise. According to the learned counsel, that makes all the difference between the subject matter of these Original Petitions and the subject matter of 1999 (2)KLT 63. In any view of the matter, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the rule restricting applications from only one district should be read down in its application to cases where the test is held for all the districts on one and the same date.