IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 32876 of 2008(L) ----------------- ------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SINDHU.P.R., SENIOR ACCOUNTANT, DISTRICT TREASURY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,M REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR (DEPARTMENTAL TESTS) KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. MR.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.32876/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE REJECTION MEMO ISSUED BY THE 2N RESPONDENT DT. 17.12.07. P2:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION FORMAT ALONG WITH THE INSTRUCTION TO THE CANDIDATES PUBLISHED BY THE COMMISSION. P3:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.119/08 DT. 3.6.08. P4:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE COMMISSION DT, 14..08. P5:- COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN WP(C) NO.25836/08 DT. 16.9.08. P6:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC. NO.25836/08 DT. 25.9.08. P7:- COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE COMMISSION TO THE PETITIONER DT. 17.10.08. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R1:- COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE SERVICE COMMISSION. R2:- COPY OF THE INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY THE COMMISSION TO THE CANDIDATES /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.32876/2008-L ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 24th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P7 by which the Public Service Commission informed the petitioner that the rejection of her application for appearance in the Departmental test is perfectly justified. The rejection was for the reason that the designation of the petitioner is not shown in the application. 2. The petitioner is now working as Senior Accountant in District Treasury Office, Thiruvananthapuram. She had submitted an application on 05/11/2007 pursuant to the notification inviting the application from candidates eligible for admission to departmental tests. Her application was duly submitted in the form prescribed. Ext.P1 is the memo by which her application stood rejected. The reason shown therein is that the designation is not shown in the application. Ext.P2 is the form of application, in which, according to the petitioner, there is no column to fill-up the designation. Earlier, she had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.119/2008 which was disposed of along with similar matters by a common judgment (Ext.P3). This Court was pleased to direct the Commission to consider the matter afresh in the light of the findings contained in the said judgment. W.P.(C) No.32876/2008 -:2:- Again the petitioner was given a reply as per Ext.P4, which according to the petitioner is not in accordance with the directions in Ext.P3 judgment. The same was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C).No.25836/2008 and pursuant to the directions issued therein, the matter was again considered and Ext.P7 order has been passed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even inspite of the two judgments no specific reasons have been stated except the reliance placed on the gazette notification dated 02/10/2007. 4. During the pendency of the earlier writ petition, namely, W.P.(C).No.119/2008, she was permitted to appear for the examination on a provisional basis. 5. Pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 13/01/2009, the result of the petitioner has been produced in a sealed cover for perusal. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the principles stated by this Court in Manoj Kumar v.Kerala Public Service Commission [1999(2)KLT 534] and Prasad v.Kerala Public Service Commission [2004(1) KLT SN Case No.32 Page 26] to contend for the position that if the defects are only minor ones, the Commission is well within its power to allow the candidates to cure the same. It is further W.P.(C) No.32876/2008 -:3:- pointed out that in the column for filling up the official address, it is not specified that the designation is also to be furnished and since she was working in the Sub Treasury Office, it was not difficult to identify her, as there could not be many applications from the said office. 7. Relying upon the notification Ext.R1, the learned Standing Counsel for the P.S.C pointed out that, fatal defects have been specified therein, and one of them is absence of designation and therefore the rejection is perfectly justified. 8. The issue is whether, merely for the absence of the designation, the application could be rejected. The insistence of the same would be to identify the candidate in a more effective manner, as otherwise the Commission will be finding it difficult to do the same. Still the question is whether when an application is complete in all other respects, the same could be rejected stating that the said defect is fatal. While issuing directions on the earlier occasion, the learned Single Judge has observed in paragraph (5) of the judgment in W.P.(C).No.119/2008 that “after all, the lapse on the part of the applicant to mention the designation does not result in the Public Service Commission being put to difficulties in identifying the applicant. The application submitted by a departmental candidate is to be attested by the Head of the Office as well”. Hence the matter has to be considered in a larger perspective also. Herein the candidate has already W.P.(C) No.32876/2008 -:4:- been allowed to write the examination pursuant to the interim direction in W.P.(C) 119/2008. Going by the result of the examination produced before this Court, she has secured more marks than the prescribed minimum. Unlike in the case of a general category candidate, the test herein is only a departmental test. Therefore, the request of the candidate for allowing the application has to be acceded to. 9. One more thing that is discernible from the pleadings is that she was appearing for the test while working in the Sub Treasury Office, Vizhinjam. Going by Column (4) where the full address of the candidate is to be written, she has written as Sub Treasury Office, Vizhinjam. Therefore, there may not be a number of applications from the said office. If viewed in that manner, there cannot be any difficulty in treating her application as valid. But in other institutions, where large number of applications may be there, Commission may be justified in insisting of the completion of the application form by writing the designation. Therefore, on the peculiar facts of this case, I feel that the rejection of application for the only reason that the designation is not written may not be proper. Hence, this case can be treated as having an exceptional circumstance. Each case may have to be viewed separately. 10. Now that going by the result made available before me, the petitioner has passed the examination and no prejudice is caused to other W.P.(C) No.32876/2008 -:5:- candidates, her result can be published. Exts.P1, P4 and P7 are hereby quashed. The Public Service Commission is directed to accept the candidature of the petitioner as valid and publish the result of the examination. I make it clear that this need not be treated as a precedent. The writ petition is allowed as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms