IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2011/10TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 18969 of 2011 (U) --------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- 1. MOLI P.M, AGED 43 YEARS D/O. MADHAVAN, KURISINGL HOUSE, KALLANOD PO KOZHIKODE 673 615. 2. DEVI V.V, AGED 38 YEARS, D/O.VELLAN VAZHAYIL HOUSE, CHEMPANODA PO,KOZHIKODE 673 528. 3. VIJEESH KUMAR A.K, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRAN,VIJENDRA NIVAS PANANGADU PO, KOZHIKODE 673 612. 4. THANKAMANI K.K, AGED 39 YEARS, D/O.KANNALAN, VENNOTTIL HOUSE KOTHAMANGALAM PO, KOYILANDY ,KOZHIKODE 673 305. 5. SINDHU K.P,AGED 38, D/O.BALAN PADAMBATH HOUSE, BALISSERY,KOZHIKODE 673 612. BY ADVS.SRI.P.R.SREEJITH SRI.M.PROMODH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: -------------- 1. THE SECRETARY,PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE CIVIL STATION KOZHIKODE. 3. THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATHS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01- 08-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 18969 of 2011 (U) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKETS ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKETS ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKETS ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKETS ISSUED TO THE 4TH PETITIONER EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKETS ISSUED TO THE 5TH PETITIONER EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORT DT 28.5.2011 APPEARED IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE RECENT ADMISSION TICKET FOR LOWER DIVISION CLERK EXAMINATION SCHEDULED ON 11.6.2011 EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DT 21.6.2011 OF INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P9 : TRUE COY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 3.6.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO 1ST RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE jma C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 18969 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioners were applicants to the post of Sanitary Inspector under the Department of Panchayat the vacancy of which was notified by the Kerala Public Service Commission. As part of the selection process a written examination was held on 27.5.2011 at three centres in Kozhikode District. The contention of the petitioners is that the information which they obtained through the Right to Information Act as per Ext.P8 is that out of the 850 applicants to the post only 501 candidates who were issued with admission tickets 501 candidates could write the examination owing to non- production of identity proof along with the admission ticket. It is so happened only on account of the action on the part of the Invigilators in not permitting the candidates to appear for the examination without producing the identity proof despite the absence any such condition in the admission ticket, it is contended. It is the specific contention of the petitioners that a perusal of Exts. P1 to P5 Admission Tickets issued to them W.P.(C)No. 18969 OF 2011 2 would reveal that no condition was incorporated thereunder requiring the candidates to produce Photo affixed Identity Proof issued by the Election Commission or Driving License or Passport or Identity cards issued by Social Welfare Department to physically handicapped persons or photo affixed Passbooks issued by Nationalized Banks or PAN card, Identity Cards issued to Government Employees by the Departments/institutions concerned to reveal the identity of the concerned candidate as a condition for acquiring eligibility for appearing for the examination in addition to the production of admission ticket. Therefore, insistence of such a restriction, that too, without incorporating any such condition in the Admission Ticket amounts to denial of right of the petitioners and others similarly situated applicants to take part in the selection for which they are otherwise entitled. The further contention of the petitioners is that in the three centres examination was conducted on 27.05.2011 in connection with the selection process for appointment to the post of Sanitary Inspector at different times, but with the same question papers and it tantamounts to leakage of question papers, vitiating the entire selection W.P.(C)No. 18969 OF 2011 3 process. According to the petitioners the Invigilators permitted the candidates to go back home and collect the identity cards for appearing for the examination and to facilitate the same the examination was delayed by 45 minutes. Since the residence of the petitioners are situated at a far of place they could not make use of such a concession to collect the identity cards and then appear in the examination. Raising such a grievance petitioner have filed Ext.P9 representation dated 3.6.2011. The contention of the petitioners is that despite the receipt of Ext.P9 represention no remedial action was taken by the respondents and in fact, the respondents are proceeding with the selection process. According to the petitioners this is illegal and liable to be interfered with. It is with the aforesaid averments that this writ petition has been filed mainly with the prayer to declare that the insistence for identity proof without notice at the time of examination for Sanitary Inspector by the second respondent deprived the petitioners of their valuable chance to write the examination and therefore, the same is arbitrary, prejudicial and illegal and violative of the fundamental rights. Consequential reliefs have also been sought for. W.P.(C)No. 18969 OF 2011 4 The petitioners further contended Ext.P7 would reveal that in a subsequent PSC test in respect of another post such an instruction bas been specifically incorporated in the admission ticket. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. As already noticed hereinbefore, essentially, the grievance of the petitioner pertains to the action on the part of the second respondent in insisting for production of Identity proof over and above admission ticket for earning entry to the examination hall for writing the examination in the absence of any such prior intimation or instruction in the admission ticket. According to the petitioner such an action on the part of the second respondent deprived them the invaluable right to take part in a selection process conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that even much prior to the conduct of examination PSC had published information relating the same in the PSC Bulletin. It is submitted that from March 1, 2011 onwards, to avoid impersonation of candidates and such other irregularities likely to occur with a view to W.P.(C)No. 18969 OF 2011 5 ensure fairness in selection processes the commission has been imposing such a condition, that is production of identity cards along with the admission ticket. It is further submitted that said communication has been issued through PSC bulletin to let it known to all candidates appearing for examinations conducted by the Public Service Commission regarding the aforesaid requirement. It is used to issue such communication by way of notification in the PSC Bulletin. It is submitted, in the case on hand as well such a communication was issued to make the above requirement known to the candidates who were to appear for the above mentioned examination. According to the learned counsel the very fact that out of 850 candidates applied for the post 501 candidates produced identity proof and participated in the written examination itself would reveal that the communication caught the attention of applicants. Merely because, such a communication issued in the PSC Bulletin could not attract the attention of the petitioners resulting in their failure to produce the identity cards it cannot be taken as a reason to interfere with the selection process initiated by the Commission in the matter of selection to the post of W.P.(C)No. 18969 OF 2011 6 Sanitary Inspector, it is submitted. 3. The petitioners, relying on the aforesaid aspects contended that as long as such a condition was not incorporated in the admission ticket issued to the applicants no latches or lapse could be attributed on their part and therefore, in fairness, the respondents should be compelled to reschedule the examination or to conduct a fresh examination for selection to the post of Sanitary Inspector. In this case, admittedly, the examination was conducted on 27.05.2011 and Ext.P9 representation was submitted raising grievances against the same on 03.06.2011. Before, adverting to the submissions and contentions it is relevant to refer to instruction No.12 in Exts.P1 to P5 admission tickets and the same, given thereunder is bold letters reads thus:- “JRfË]sOU WLqevwL¤ kq}ƒ oLã]vpV¨OÐ kƒU A¨Lq|vOU kOfO¨]p kq}ƒL f}pf]pOU pgLyopU v]v]i oLi|o°¥ oOSXj Ar]p] ¨OÐfLeV. v|©]Yf Ar]p]ÕV j¤WOÐfsæ. kOf] p kq}ƒL f}pf]p]¤ DSh|LYL¡À]W¥ CSf AcVo] x¢ a]¨ãV fRÐ zL^qL¨eU.” 4. Immediately beneath instruction No.12, in still bold letters the name of the fortnightly publication of the W.P.(C)No. 18969 OF 2011 7 Commission has been given as ' k] IyV y] mOçã]¢ '. It has been given below instructions No.12 in such manner that it cannot escape the attention anyone who gazes through the reverse side of the said Admission Tickets. The submission made by the learned counsel for the Commission regarding publication of such an instruction to all candidates appearing for such examinations viz., to produce identity proof besides the admission card issued to each of them for appearing for the concerned PSC test and the coming into force of such a provision with effect from 01.03.2011 are not under dispute. When that be an inviolable requirement made with a view to get rid of impersonation of candidates and such other irregularities its insistence cannot be said to be arbitrary, unjustifiable or illegal. The petitioners themselves admitted the fact that out of 850 candidates who were issued with admission tickets 501 candidates produced such identity proof and wrote the examination held on 27.05.2011. In such circumstances, the contention of the petitioners that all the candidates who were issued with admission tickets for the test held on 27.05.2011 were totally in the dark with respect to the requirement to produce identity proof W.P.(C)No. 18969 OF 2011 8 besides production of admission ticket for writing the examination cannot be accepted and infact, that very fact would debunk the said contention of the petitioners. So also, the contention of the petitioners that some of the candidates residing nearby the examination centre were given permission to go back home to fetch identity proof by the invigilators even after the scheduled time also would be belied by Ext.P6 produced by the petitioners themselves. In the context of the case it is relevant to refer to the following portions in Ext.P6:- “oL¡\ÿV KÐV oOf¤ k].IyV.y] kq}ƒW¥¨V SlLSŸL kf]\ÿ f]q]\ÿr]p¤ WL¡cV Bvw| oLReÐV v]³Lkjo]r¨]pfLReÐOU CfV IsæL kNf°t]sOU Nky]ÈRÕaO¾]p] ŸORºÐOU k].IyV.y] Ai]WQf¡ Ar]p]\ÿO. “ “AaO¾ NkShw°t]¤ v}aOçv¡ RkRŸÐOSkLp] f]q]\ÿr]p¤ WL¡cOoLp] vRÐË]sOU kq}ƒ fOa°]pf]jL¤ AjOof] j]Sxi]¨RÕŸO.” There can be no doubt that conduct of a PSC Examination involves tiresome efforts and huge expenses. Therefore, an examination conducted by the Commission can be interfered only when a palpable, wholesome W.P.(C)No. 18969 OF 2011 9 illegality is brought out. Such a case warranting interference is not made out by the petitioners. The writ petition is, therefore, liable to fail and accordingly, it is dismissed. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma