IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY MONDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2011 / 20TH POUSHA 1932 WA.No. 2116 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.35824/2010 Dated 02/12/2010 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ VINEETHA, AGED 37 YEARS, W/O.PRASAD, KAYIKKARAVELI, MUHAMMA P.O., CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. MR.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC MR.VIJAYAMOHANAN, SC THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. ---------------------------------- W.A.No.2116 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 10th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. The Public Service Commission invited applications for appointment of Clerks/Cashier in District Co-operative Banks in the State as a whole. The applicants could make applications for selection for appointment to specific District Co-operative Banks in every district. 50% of the appointments have to be made from general category, and 50% are reserved for employees of member societies of concerned District Co-operative Bank. The appellant though applied to the PSC to write the examination in the General Category, which is code numbered as 20/2006 by the PSC, the appellant committed a mistake in the application in writing the code number as 21/2006, which applies to employees of member societies of the District Co-operative Bank concerned. During processing the appellant's application, the PSC informed the appellant that she had not furnished employment certificate to be included in the category reserved for employees of member societies. At this stage, the appellant realised the mistake in the application form with regard to the code number written which was 21/2006 instead of 20/2006, and she therefore requested for W.A.No.2116/2010 -2- correction. The PSC allowed the request and treating the appellant as a person seeking selection in the general category (20/2006) issued hall ticket to her to write the examination in the general category. The appellant appeared in the examination and obtained 80 marks, which qualifies her for inclusion in the select list, as the minimum marks required for inclusion in the select list was only 60. At this stage, the PSC took the stand that the application originally submitted by the appellant was liable to be rejected on account of the wrong category code written by her and this was based on an earlier circular of the PSC dated 29/05/2009. Consequently even after correction in the application and after issuing hall ticket to the appellant to write the examination in the eligible category and in spite of her writing the examination and qualifying in it by getting much more than the required marks for inclusion in the select list, the appellant was not included in the select list. It is against this action of the PSC, the appellant approached this Court with the Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge followed another judgment in Neena v. Public Service Commission, reported in 2010(1) KLT 258 and dismissed the Writ Petition, against which this Writ Appeal is filed by the appellant. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and W.A.No.2116/2010 -3- learned Standing Counsel for the PSC. We do not think there can be any dispute on the legal position canvassed by the PSC based on several court decisions that they are entitled to reject an application, if category code given in the application is wrong. However, this does not mean that the PSC on noticing the mistake cannot allow correction of the application submitted by an applicant. Obviously, in this case, the PSC based on the appellant's request, carried out correction on category code, treated her application thereafter as one filed under general category and issued hall ticket permitting the appellant to write the examination. The appellant participated in the written examination only after the PSC corrected the category code in the application and issued hall ticket to the appellant. Even though learned counsel for the PSC submitted that application was not corrected, we cannot accept it because the correspondence produced in Court including PSC letter go to show that the appellant requested for correction and without correction of category code, the PSC would not have issued hall ticket. The appellant also came out successfully by obtaining 80 marks as against the minimum of 60 marks required for inclusion in the select list. We are amazed to notice the negative approach of the PSC in denying selection to a meritorious candidate W.A.No.2116/2010 -4- after the candidate underwent preparation, wrote the examination and came out successfully. Therefore, without disturbing the settled legal position that the PSC is entitled to reject an application which does not carry correct category code, we hold that in this case the correction allowed to be carried out by the PSC is just and reasonable and the PSC has no authority to deny selection to the appellant, who came out successfully in the examination. Even though counsel for the PSC relied on the judgment in W.A.No.1236/2010 dated 23/07/2010, in our view, when the PSC allowed correction in the application and issued hall ticket treating the appellant as a person applied in general category, the defect no longer survives in the application, and so much so, the PSC cannot decline the benefit of selection to the appellant. We therefore allow the Writ Appeal by vacating the judgment of the learned Single Judge with a direction to the PSC to include the appellant in the select list and publish the list. This Writ Appeal is allowed as above. Sd/- (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) Sd/- (BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JUDGE) jg //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE.