IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2010 / 1ST SRAVANA 1932 WA.No. 1236 of 2010(C) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.9885/2010 Dated 29/03/2010 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ SHEEJA.P., S.N.BHAVAN, MUTHUKULAM SOUTH.PO, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.D.SOMASUNDARAM RESPONDENT(S): RESONDENTS ------------------------- 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. DISTRICT OFFICER,KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA. 3. DISTTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.A. 1236 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated: JULY 23, 2010 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. Appellant was an aspirant to the post of Clerk/Cashier in the District Co-operative Bank, Alappuzha. She submitted an application in response to the notification issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission in this regard. It is beyond controversy that appointments were proposed to be made under two categories viz. (a) General and (b), 50% quota available by transfer. 2. It is admitted by the appellant that while submitting her application she had indicated Code No.21/206 as the category applicable in her case, which pertains to 'Service Quota'. In fact she ought to have indicated Code No.20 which applied to General Quota. According to the appellant, she had noticed the above mistake on the next day itself and made a request to the District Officer of the Commission. Anyhow, the fact remains that she was allowed to participate in the written examination. But surprisingly when the short list was published, her name was not included therein, on the ground that her application had been rejected since it was found to be defective. It is in the above circumstances that the appellant filed the W.A. 1236 of 2010 2 writ petition before the learned Single Judge praying for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to treat her application as valid and to include her name in the short list. She further prayed for a declaration that the mistake committed by her in the application was so trivial that it could not have been treated as fatal to her eligibility to be considered for selection and appointment to the post. 3. The learned Single Judge repelled the contentions raised by the appellant and dismissed the writ petition relying on a decision of this Court in Neena v. Public Service Commission (2010 (1) KLT 258). In this decision it was noticed by the learned Single Judge that in T. Jayakumar v. A.Gopu and another {(2008) 9 SCC 403}, it has been held that there cannot be any estoppal against the Commission even if the candidate is allowed to participate in the examination as though the application submitted by him/her was not defective. The above decision was followed by another learned Single Judge in WP(C) 34228/2009 which, in turn, was affirmed by a Division Bench in W.A.348/2010 . The Division Bench observed thus:- “The short point that arises for decision in this case is whether the decision of the PSC impugned is one within jurisdiction. We have no doubt in our mind that if the application does not mention the correct category number, W.A. 1236 of 2010 3 it is a defective application. If the PSC decides to reject a defective application, the same cannot be said to be ultra vires or unauthorised.” We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain this writ appeal. It is therefore dismissed in limine. A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mt/-