IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 9509 of 2009(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DHANESH.A.S., DHANYA, PUNNAMOODU, KALLIYOOR (P.O.), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 42. BY ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC FOR R1 RO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.9509 OF 2009 (G) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T On 14.11.2005, PSC published a notification inviting applications for the post of Surveyor Grd.-II in the Department of Survey and Land Records. Petitioner applied in response to the vacancy notification and appeared for the written test and passed the examination. Subsequently, he was included in the preliminary list. According to the petitioner their occurred delay in finalizing the selection process on account account of certain litigations which were pending before this court. 2. In the meantime petitioner got employment in Dubai and left for Dubai in 2008. Subsequent to that, Ext.P3 was issued by the PSC on 23.7.2008 requiring the petitioner to appear for certificate verification at 10 a.m. on 6.8.2008. Petitioner submits that since his employer refused to let him go from Dubai, he could not make himself available as directed in Ext.P3. It is stated that on the other hand his parents appeared and produced the documents and represented for time to enable the petitioner to appear as directed. Finally, the ranked list was finalized by the WPC.No.9509 /09 :2 : PSC on 15.11.2008 excluding the petitioner. It was thereupon that the writ petition was filed contending that it was for reasons beyond his control, that the petitioner could not appear as directed in Ext.P3 and therefore he should be given yet another opportunity to produce the certificates and on that basis, his candidature should be considered. 3. Pursuant to the interim order passed by this court, Ext.P8 representation of the petitioner which was pending before the PSC was considered and PSC rejected his request by Ext.P9 order. On receipt of Ext.P9, petitioner got the writ petition amended incorporating a challenge against Ext.P9 as well. 4. Standing Counsel for the respondents, referring to the counter affidavit filed submits that in terms of the conditions of the notification and the condition in Ext.P3, a candidate is to personally appear for verification of the certificates. It is stated that Ext.P3 required the petitioner to appear on 6.8.2008. Not only that he did not appear before the PSC as directed in Ext.P3, but he did not appear before the PSC with the certificates at any time before finalization of the ranked list, which took place only on 5.11.2008. It is stated that such facility is given only as a WPC.No.9509 /09 :3 : matter of practice and not under any compulsion. It is stated that once the ranked list is finalized as done, it is not possible to alter the ranked list and the Standing counsel relied on the judgment of this court in Binimil K.G. v. KPSC (1997()KLJ 477) and the judgemnt in WP(c).No.12760/09 to justify their action. He also disputed the claim that the petitioners father appealed and represented for time. 5. Evidently the conditions of the notification required the candidate to appear in person, for verification of certificates. Admittedly, the petitioner did not appear before the PSC any time before 15.11.2008 when the ranked list was finalised and published. Once the PSC has prescribed a condition in the notification, as in the case of petitioner, PSC is also equally bound by such condition. In this case all that the PSC has done is to enforce the condition imposed by itself. In such circumstances this court will not be justified in finding fault with the PSC for having acted in terms of the conditions of the notification issued by it. This stand of the PSC is also fully supported by the judgments referred to above. WPC.No.9509 /09 :4 : 6. Counsel for the petitioner points out that even now several vacancies are available and therefore he should be given an opportunity to produce his certificates and if eligible should be included in the ranked list. In view of the findings in the previous judgment, I am not in a position to accept this contention of the petitioner. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/