OMANA Vs. KPSC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Original Petition was referred to the Division Bench by the learned Single Judge notwithstanding the decision in O.P. 2490 of 1993 as affirmed in W.A. 612 of 1993 since according to the learned Judge important constitutional questions raised in the Original Petition deserve to be considered and decided by a Division Bench.

(2.) Pursuant to a Notification issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission for selection to the post of Confidential Assistants Gr. II (Malayalam) in various; departments the petitioner made two independent applications. Both the applications were signed on 17th March 1986. In one of the applications the petitioner applied from Ernakulam District for selection in that District. In the other, for appointment in the Idukki District. The Notification issued in that behalf marked Ext. P-9, contained the following note among other notes:

(3.) It may be noted that it is pursuant to the Notification Ext. P-9 that the petitioner applied and got included in the ranked lis:. It is therefore pointed out by counsel for the Public Service Commission that the petitioner is estopped from challenging Note 3 in Ext. P-9 Notification. In an almost identical situation His Lordship Mr. Justice Mathews P. Mathew in O.P. 2490 of 1993 held that a person who had applied under the Notification and had participated in the selection process could not subsequently turn round and challenge the Notification. This decision of the learned Single Judge was affirmed by a Division Bench in W.A. 62 of 1993. In the light of the decision in W.A. 612 of 1993 it is clear that the petitioner is estopped from challenging the condition in the Notification that the petitioner could not apply for the same post from two Districts. The above view is seen to be approved by another Division Bench in Kerala P.S.C. v. Hareendran 1999 (2) KLT 63 in which also a similar question was raised.