IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2010 / 2ND POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 34341 of 2010(P) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- ASHADEVI .R, KOMALIL KAYALVARAM, KANDALLOOR SOUTH, KANDALOOR P.O, KAYAMKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.RAJEEV V.KURUP, SRI.ALEX.M.SCARIA. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM 695 004. 2. DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE, ALAPPUZH- 688 001. R1 & R2 BY SRI. ALEXANDER THOMAS, S.C, P.S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.34341 of 2010 ---------------------------- Dated 23rd December, 2010 JUDGMENT The grievance of the petitioner raised in this writ petition is relating rejection of an application for appointment to the post of Clerk/Cashier in the District Co-operative Bank. According to the petitioner, she had responded to the notification issued by the Public Service Commission and based on the said application, as part of the selection process, the petitioner was called upon to participate in a written examination. For that purpose, Ext.P1 admission ticket was issued to the petitioner. Evidently, in Ext.P1, the category code has been shown as 20/2006. It is the category code for the direct recruits. In fact, category No.21/2006 is the code number for service quota candidates. Admittedly, the petitioner was working in the Coir Co- operative Society at the time when she had submitted the application. The contention of the petitioner is that the action on the part of the respondents in rejecting the application, after permitting the petitioner to partake in the selection process, on the ground of wrong entry of the code number is unsustainable. According to the petitioner, though she had entered the code No.21/2006 in the application, later the same was corrected as 20/2006. According to the petitioner, it was so corrected WP(C).No.34341/2010 2 realising that the petitioner was not having eligibility to apply under service quota as she did not have three years previous experience in the society. In short, the specific contention of the petitioner is that in the application submitted to the public service commission, though she had entered the code No.21/2006 subsequently it was corrected as 20/2006. In view of the specific assertion made by the petitioner the public service commission was directed to produce a copy of the application submitted by the petitioner. When this matter is taken up today, the learned standing counsel made available a copy of the application submitted by the petitioner. It would reveal that the category code entered thereunder by the petitioner is 21/2006. It is the category code for the service quota candidates. Admittedly, the petitioner has not earned eligibility to apply under the service quota. In view of the facts obtained in this case, I am of the view that there is no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition. At the same time, the action on the part of the respondents in rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner on account of a wrong entry of the code number, that is instead of 20/2006 as 21/2006 cannot be said to be illegal warranting interference by this Court. The action on the part of the respondents are sustainable in view of the decisions of this Court in Neena v. Public WP(C).No.34341/2010 3 Service Commission (2010 (1) KLT 258) and in W.A.No.348 of 2010. For all these reasons, I am of the view that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS // True copy // P.S. to Judge