IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2009 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 543 of 2009(M) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- ASEENA.M.A., BAR CODE NO.N1000129, CATEGORY NO.470/07, NAVAROGE HOUSE, NEDUMBASSERY P.O,GANDHI GRAMAM -683 585, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.K.JAJU BABU, SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI, MR.T.R.SADEESAN, MR.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH, MR.BRIJESH MOHAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM PALACE P.O, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, TRIVANDRUM. R1 BY ADV. MR.ALEXANDER THOMAS, S.C,K.P.S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 543 of 2009-M - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of December, 2009. JUDGMENT In this writ petition the petitioner is challenging the refusal of the Public Service Commission to call the petitioner for appearing in the written test for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Islamic History (category No.470/07). 2. The petitioner submitted an application pursuant to Ext.P1 notification. Category No.470/07 relates to Lecturer in Islamic History The petitioner is a graduate in Islamic History with 2nd rank. She is also a post graduate in Islamic History with First Class and First Rank. She is having NET qualification for Lectureship. 3. The petitioner submitted the application through online which was duly received by the Commission. It is the case of the petitioner that no defect was pointed out also. But she was not called for participating in the written test and on enquiry it was revealed that the category number shown in the application is 471/07 for Political Science. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Commission, it is wpc 543/2009 2 pointed out that the petitioner had wrongly indicated the category code of Lecturer in Political Science, viz. 471/07 instead of 470/07. Accordingly, she was not called upon for the written test. She was permitted to appear in the written test in the light of the interim order passed by this Court and the result of the petitioner is withheld. 5. The question whether a mistake in category code while filling up the application, is fatal or not, has been considered by me in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.30273/2009. After considering the decision of this Court in Binimil K.G. v. K.P.S.C. (1997 (2) KLJ 477) and that of the Apex Court in T. Jayakumar v. A. Gopu and another {(2008) 9 SCC 403} and an unreported judgment of a learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.28048/2008, it was held that such a mistake is fatal. Para 12 of the said judgment is reproduced below: “12. Therefore, the question is whether the rejection of the application for wrongly recording the category number is justified or not. It is of importance to notice that category number is vital for the validity of the application. There is no specific provision for allowing a candidate to correct an entry in the category code. Even though the application is for the same post, herein H.S.A. (English), if the applications of such candidates are accepted, then that will be violative of the instructions issued to the candidates. Category wpc 543/2009 3 number 83 was for direct recruitment from open market and category number 84 was for by transfer. In the light of the view taken by the Division Bench in Binimil’s case (1997 (2) KLJ 477), a strict view on the part of the Commission cannot be said to be illegal. Their Lordships were of the view that laxity in one case will leave open the flood gate of requests to condone such irregularities or omissions. And the Commission with its heavy workload must strictly adhere to the norms set by it. I respectfully follow the same. As held by the Apex Court in T. Jayakumar’s case {(2008) 9 SCC 403), there cannot be estoppel in these matters and merely because a hall ticket was issued to the petitioner, it cannot be said that the Commission is bound by it and cannot at a later stage reject the application.” Similar is the situation herein also. Even though the petitioner is relying upon the decision in Kuriakose v. State of Kerala and others (1984 KLT 925), the effect of the said decision was also considered in W.P.(C) No.30273/2009 and it was found that the facts of the case are different. In that view of the matter, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/