IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2011 / 30TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1053 of 2011(F) ------------------------ PETITIONER : -------------------- A.SHIHABDHEEN, S/O.ABDUL MAJEED, AGED 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT M M S HOUSE, KAMMANTHARA, PO THATHAMANGALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.M.SAJJAD RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, POWER DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 2. THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 3. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM 695 004 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT OFFICER KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DISTRICT OFFICE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 014. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. SANDESH RAJA R2 BY ADV. SRI. K.S. ANIL, SC, KSEB R3 & R4 BY ADV. SRI. ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, PSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 1053 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner applied for the post of Mazdoor in the Kerala State Electricity Board pursuant to notification inviting applications by the Kerala Public Service Commission. After the selection process he was included in the rank list. But going by the date of birth entered by the petitioner in his application he was overaged. But subsequent to the inclusion of his name in the rank list he got his date of birth corrected in his S.S.L.C Book. But he was not advised to the post in accordance with his rank. He approached this court and obtained Ext.P7 judgment for consideration of his representation to the P.S.C. in that regard. By Ext.P8 order, the same was rejected on the ground that as per his application he was overaged and subsequent correction cannot be taken into account. The petitioner is challenging the same. The petitioner's contention is that going by the corrected date of birth he was within the age limit prescribed and therefore he ought W.P.(C)No. 1053 of 2011 -2- to have been advised in accordance with the rank assigned to him in the rank list. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the P.S.C. is that, the petitioner is bound by Clause 18 of the general conditions in the notification inviting applications which specifically stipulates that claims made subsequent to the application will not be considered under any circumstances and proof submitted without proper claim in the application also will not be considered. The submission is that going by the date of birth shown in the application submitted by the petitioner, admittedly he was overaged. Therefore a claim put forward on the basis of a correction of the date of birth obtained subsequently, cannot be considered for the purpose of advise is their contention. The standing counsel for the PSC relies on a decision of this court in Shaji v. Kerala Public Service Commission (2011 (1) KLT 99), wherein without including a claim for reservation in the application later on a claim was made for reservation, which was repelled by this court on the basis of W.P.(C)No. 1053 of 2011 -3- Clause 18 in the general conditions in the notification inviting applications. He also submits that in an unreported judgment in W.A. No.2383/2007 also a similar view has been taken. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. Clause 18 of the general conditions stipulate thus: “Claims made subsequent to the application will not be considered under any circumstances. Proof submitted without proper claim in the application also will not be considered”. The petitioner is bound by the same. Going by the date of birth shown by the petitioner in his application he was clearly overaged. Therefore in view of Clause 18 the petitioner cannot seek advise on the basis of a subsequent correction of date of birth. My above view is supported by the decisions relied upon by the learned standing counsel for the P.S.C. In the above circumstances, there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/