IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2009 / 10TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 12760 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VINOD.T.U, S/O.THANKARAJAN, NIRAPPIL VEEDU, PERUMKULANGARA, NEYYAR DAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, OFFICE OF THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY G.P. SHRI K. RAMESH R2 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC FOR PSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 12760 of 2009-L - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner herein has approached this court seeking to quash Ext.P8 and for a direction to include his name in Ext.P5 rank list. By Ext.P8, it was informed that the request to include his name cannot be considered, as the original documents were not produced within the time allowed. 2. The post to which the petitioner submitted his application is Tradesman (Instrument Technology) in the Department of Technical Education. The petitioner was invited for an interview which was conducted on 27.11.2008. During the relevant time he was doing his part- time B.Tech. in the Government College of Engineering, Sreekariam and therefore the original Diploma Certificate and mark list were kept in the said college. He attended the interview after producing the attested copies of mark list and Diploma certificate and requested for further time to produce the originals of it. Accordingly, he was allowed to participate in the interview. On 12.2.2009 by Ext.P4, the rank list was published. He could procure the original certificates only on 5.3.2009 and thereafter, he wpc 12760/2009 2 produced them on 6.3.2009 along with Ext.P6. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the Public Service Commission, it is pointed out that he was called for the interview on 27.11.2008 with a direction to produce all the original documents to substantiate his claim in the application for the post. On his request, a further period of 7 days time was given. As he failed to produce the original certificates for verification, even after 7 days, his name was not included in the rank list which was published on 12.2.2009. It is averred that the petitioner has violated para 12 (b), 16 and 28(a) of the General Conditions of gazette notification and hence his request cannot be considered. 4. It is also pointed out that the Commission will have to comply with the stipulations of the General Conditions, since they are dealing with a large number of applications and therefore a relaxation in favour of some of the candidates will result in similar demands from other candidates also. The petitioner was not the lone candidate excluded from the rank list for non-production of original documents. It is pointed out that this court in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.2748/2009, has held that the Commission is bound to observe the instructions strictly in the light of larger public interest. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Ashok v. wpc 12760/2009 3 P.S.C. (2001 (2) KLT 788 (SC) as well as a decision of this court in Satheesh v. K.P.S.C. (2003 (1) KLT 976) to justify the stand of the Commission. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Dolly Chanda v. Chairman, Jee and others {(2005) 9 SCC 779} to contend for the position that the time fixed to produce documents cannot be taken as a rigid one. Relaxation is possible in cases where hardship is caused because of rejection of candidature for non-production of the documents on the appointed day. In the said judgment, it was held in para 7 that “the general rule is that while applying for any course of study or a post, a person must possess the eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for such purpose either in the admission brochure or in application form, as the case may be, unless there is an express provision to the contrary. There can be no relaxation in this regard i.e. in the matter of holding the requisite eligibility qualification by the date fixed. This has to be established by producing the necessary certificates, degrees or mark sheets. Similarly, in order to avail of the benefit of reservation or weightage, etc. necessary certificates have to be produced. These are documents in the nature of proof of holding of particular qualification or wpc 12760/2009 4 percentage of marks secured or entitlement to benefit of reservation. Depending upon the facts of a case, there can be some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof and it will not be proper to apply any rigid principle as it pertains in the domain of procedure. Every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature.” 6. The facts of the case show that the petitioner therein appeared for the Joint Entrance Examination, 2003 under the reservation category as the daughter of an ex-serviceman. The petitioner produced the correct certificate at the stage of second counselling. In those circumstances, the Apex Court held that the certificate ought to have been accepted. 7. Going by the facts of this case, the petitioner herein was invited for the first time for an interview on 27.11.2008 and on his request time was granted. The rank list was published only on 12.2.2009, 76 days after the said date. He could not produce the certificates even within the extended time and before the publication of the rank list. Therefore, it is not a case where no relaxation was granted, but actually, he was given further time by the Commission to produce the certificates. Of course, the petitioner has got a case that he could get the originals returned, only on 5.3.2009. But since the rank list was published on 12.2.2009, the Commission could not wpc 12760/2009 5 be faulted in not accepting the originals produced by him, after the publication of the rank list. In that view of the matter, I find that the petitioner is not entitled for any indulgence at this stage. Therefore, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/