IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 17TH MAY 2011 / 27TH VAISAKHA 1933 WP(C).No. 13403 of 2011(A) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- SREEJA M.N., PADINJARE IRINJALAPPILLY MANA, KALLETTUMKARA P.O., IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.RAMABHADRAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 004. 2. DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE, CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR, PIN-680 004. 3. CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT OF EXAM CENTRE, UNION HSS MAMBRA, ERAYAMKUDI P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 308. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 13403 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of May, 2011 J U D G M E N T In response to the notification dated 21.12.2010 by the Kerala Public Service Commission, the petitioner has submitted an application for appointment to the post of L.D Clerk in various departments. The application was submitted on line. According to the petitioner, along with the said application she submitted an application for the post of Deputy Collector in Land and Revenue Department as well, on line on the same day as per the detailed instructions available in the Website of the Kerala Public Service Commission. Virtually, the petitioner admits the prescription of specific instructions regarding the size of the photograph in the online application. The photograph was to be uploaded along with the application. The contention of the petitioner is that she had submitted the said applications through an internet cafe wherein the employees do the process of submitting the applications and uploading of photograph in the application. Further it is stated in the first paragraph of the writ petition WPC.No.13403/2011 : 2 : as hereunder:- “However, those applications were received by 1st respondent and it alloted to the petitioner barcodes for future reference. On the instant, the petitioner downloaded the received applications which bears barcodes wherein she could note that her scanned image of photographs were seen small in size but as she was not aware of further consequence accrue against, she never thought that it was any type of default. (underline supplied) Ext.P1 is photocopy of the downloaded application in respect of the post of L.D.C. The petitioner was issued with Ext.P2 admission ticket with identification certificate showing the Register No.269112. In relation to the same it has stated in the writ petition as hereunder:- “ On perusal of Ext.P2 it is seen that petitioner's scanned image of photograph is impressed small in size as in Ext.P1 from which the petitioner cannot be reasonably identified unless her address detail given therein. However, as per instructions in admission ticket issued by the 1st respondent the petitioner with original photo affixed identity proof with a self attested copy of the same annexed with Ext.P2, appeared before the Chief Superintendent of Exam - Centre, High School Arimbur and expressed her willingness to put her signature in the declaration given in Ext.P2. At the time, the Superintendent objected her to put her signature in the declaration in Ext.P2 and arbitrarily discarded her photo affixed identity proof and disallowed her to write the examination on the ground that she could not be identified from the small size scanned image photograph uploaded in Ext.P2” (underline supplied) 2. Later, Ext.P3 admission ticket and Ext.P4 identification certificate in respect of L.D.C. Examination, WPC.No.13403/2011 : 3 : were issued to the petitioner. Upon finding that Ext.P4 also bore small sized scanned image of photograph as in the case of Exts.P1 and P2 the petitioner apprehended the same fate met by her in the case of Deputy Collector's Examination. Thereupon, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P5 before the first respondent carrying the request for revoking the decision of the Chief Superintendent, Examination Centre at High School, Arimbur disallowing the petitioner to write the examination for the post of Deputy Collector and also to appear in the examination for the post of Lower Division Clerk scheduled to be held on 18.5.2011 on her production of the photo affixed identity proof in original and a self attested copy of the same to prove her identity along with identification certificate. It is anticipating an unpropitious decision on Ext.P5 that this writ petition has been filed. 3. A scanning of the above extracted and above mentioned contentions of the petitioner would undoubtedly reveal that the petitioner virtually admits the defect in the application as regards the size of the scanned image of the photograph and that on account of the said defect it is unidentifiable. A mere glance at the scanned image on WPC.No.13403/2011 : 4 : Exts.P2 and P4 identification certificates would reveal magnitude of the said defect. The size of the scanned image on Exts.P2 and P4 identification certificates are so small in size and practically, no scanned image is available on them for identification. The very purpose of issuing identification certificate is to enable identification of the candidate. The petitioner did not attribute any flaw or laches on the part of the respondent for the said defect and according to him it all happened on account of the flaw, laches or negligence on the part of the employees of the internet cafe where the petitioner approached for submission of applications on line. When once the factum of reduced size of the scanned image on the application and the identification certificate and the consequential impact of incapability to identify the candidate viz., the petitioner from them are admitted the question is whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief of direction to the respondents to allow her to participate in the examination ignoring the said defect based on the provision for giving declaration in the identification certificate. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that clear instructions have been given WPC.No.13403/2011 : 5 : in the notification regarding the required size of the scanned image of the photograph. It was prescribed with a view to identify the candidate from the scanned image of the photograph and when once it is admitted by the petitioner herself that the size of the scanned image is such that it is impossible to identify the candidate the subsequent production of the photo affixed Identity Proof in original and a self attested copy of the same would not and could not cure the said defect and granting such permission would defeat the very purpose of the said prescription. The learned counsel submitted that this court in umpteen number of cases held that when instructions are given by the Public Service Commission in regard to the examinations, candidates applying in response to the notifications are bound to strictly adhere to the prescription and instructions and failure to follow them would definitely make the application invalid. I am of the view that in this case, on account of the very allegation of the petitioner that the defect in question had occurred on account of the flaw on the part of the employees of computer centre itself would reveal that the petitioner has failed to comply with the instructions in the notification with WPC.No.13403/2011 : 6 : respect to the size of the scanned image of the photograph or at any rate, the scanned image of photograph uploaded along with the application is not enough to identify herself as a candidate for the examination. If the scanned image of the photograph in the identification certificate is incapable of enabling the examiner at the concerned examination centre to identify the candidate on a reason absolutely unconnected with an action of the PSC the petitioner cannot legally contend that despite such defect she should be permitted to participate in the examination merely because of the wordings in the declaration given in the identification certificate. Indisputably, the scanned image of the photograph is required to be uploaded with a view to enable the examiner to identify the candidate. In view of the admitted factual position and the size and nature of the scanned image of the photograph of the petitioner in Exts.P2 and P4 I am of the considered view that the petitioner cannot be permitted to produce Exts. P2 and P4 for the purpose of curing the defect that infected the application and the identification certificates. Granting such a permission would definitely defeat the very purpose of the very prescription for uploading the scanned image of WPC.No.13403/2011 : 7 : photograph of a candidate responding to a notification. For all these reasons, I am of the view that there is no merit in this writ petition and accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge