IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2009 / 18TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 37101 of 2008(P) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- MADHU.J., PLOT NO.42, AMBEDKER GRAMAM, KADAKKAMON, PATHANAPURAM PO., KOLLAM-689695. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.K.JAGADEESH SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. DISTRICT OFFICER, KSPSC, DISTRICT OFFICE, MALAPPURAM. 3. DISTRICT OFFICER, KSPSC, DISTRICT OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, KPSC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO: 37101 of 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT The challenge in the writ petition is against the rejection of the appeal filed by the petitioner by the Public Service Commission, which is evidenced by Ext.P5. The petitioner submitted an application for the post of Electricity Worker (Mazdoor) during January, 2006. According to him, he submitted an application for an appointment in Malappuram district. He was issued Admission Ticket for written test as per Ext.P2 and, he had undergone the Cycling Test and body measurement on 17.12.2007 which is evidenced by Ext.P3. Thereafter, by Ext.P4 he was informed that even though he had submitted the application as the one for the post in Malappuram district, actually in the relevant column he had written as Thiruvananthapuram district. Ext.P4 order shows that he had submitted a complaint before Adalath on 28.8.2008 which was rejected, upholding the rejection of his application contending that his application may be re-considered, he filed another representation, which was rejected by Ext.P5. These are under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The stand taken in the writ petition is that the petitioner wpc:37101 of 2008 2 had studied only up to 8th standard and with his limited knowledge in filling up of an application, instead of filling it up it as Malappuram he happened to fill it as Thiruvananthapuram district and, therefore, that mistake could have been condoned by the Public Service Commission. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that actually it was the mistake of the writ petitioner and, therefore, no prejudice will be caused if the application is directed to be accepted. 4. Going by the facts stated in Exts.P4 and P5, it is clear that the petitioner had given the choice as Thiruvananthapuram district, even though he intended to submit the application for the post in Malappuram district. Therefore, the question of condoning the defect does not arise as the action taken is based on the choice of district as shown by the candidate. A similar issue was considered a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.2506 of 2007, which was relied on by the standing counsel for Public Service Commission. In that case also, stating that mistake occurred in showing the name of the district, the petitioner approached this Court wherein this Court considered the matter whether participation of the candidate in the examination will wpc:37101 of 2008 3 enable him to claim appointment. In that case, the candidate intended to apply in Malappuram District, but sent the same to Kannur District. On finding out the same, the application was rejected. This was upheld by this Court. The situation herein is alo identical. The general conditions of the Notification will govern the matter. Hence following the Bench Division, I hold that the rejection of the application is perfectly in order. The writ petition, therefore, fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE bps