IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2011 / 13TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 17767 of 2011(U) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SUKUMARAN.V.V., S/O.K.V.VASUDEVAN NAMBOOTHIRI, KISSANKOVVAL ROAD, ANNUR POST, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 332. BY ADVS. SRI.V.C.JAMES, SRI.SEBASTIAN JOSEPH (KURISUMMOOTTIL). RESPONDENT: ---------------------- KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY SRI. P.C. SASIDHARAN, S.C, P.S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.17767/2011-U: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.D/E 1(1) 1944/11/P.V. DTD. 19/04/2011. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE HALL TICKET AND THE INFORMATION DOWN LOADED FROM THE INTERNET. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.17767 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated 4th July, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved by the action on the part of the Kerala Public Service Commission in rejecting his application for writing departmental tests submitted pursuant to Ext.P1 notification. The petitioner has downloaded the information from the Internet and Ext.P2 information thus obtained, revealed its status as `rejected'. It is contended that though the examination is scheduled to be held on 13.7.2011 no communication has been received from the Commission, so far. It is in the said circumstances that this writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P2 and for such other consequential reliefs. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that his application has been rejected without assigning the reason as is evident from Ext.P2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned standing counsel for the Commission. In the context of the contentions the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent brought to my attention Clause No.1(a) in Ext.P1 notification that deals with the specialities of photographs required to be uploaded while submitting the online application. Clause No.1(a)7 thereunder reads thus:- WP(C).No.17767/2011 2 “1(a)7. SlLSŸL BrV oLy¾]jWU IaO¾fLp]q]¨eU. WPaLRf ASkƒWR£ SkqOU SlLSŸL IaO¾ f}pf]pOU SlLSŸLpORa \OvRa Nk]£V R\pVf]q]¨eU.” The learned standing counsel drew my attention to Ext.P2 in the light of Clause Nos. 1(a)1 and 1(a)7. A perusal of Ext.P2 wherein the petitioner has affixed his photograph, bearing in mind the conditions in Clause 1(a)7 in Ext.P1, would reveal the real reason for the rejection of the application. They would reveal that those conditions have not been strictly complied with by the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner is also not having a contention that he has complied with such requirements under Clause 1(a)7. Evidently, at the foot of the photograph the name of the petitioner and also the date on which it was taken are not printed. Such conditions have been made with a view to prevent impersonation and also to ensure fairness in the conduct of examination. Therefore, such conditions cannot be taken as inconsequential or insignificant especially in the light of reported instances. Evidently, the petitioner has not complied with the said specific conditions. Therefore, I cannot find any illegality in the action on the part of the respondent in rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner for appearing in the departmental tests. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that the conditions in the notifications issued by the Public Service Commission have to be WP(C).No.17767/2011 3 complied with strictly. In view of the said indisputable position discernible from Ext.P2 no purpose will be served by admitting this case into the file. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is liable to fail. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS