IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2011 / 17TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 18317 of 2011(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER:- ------------------ UMA.R,W/O.SARAN.G,AGED 36 YEARS, HOUSE NO.204,SHANKAR NAGAR,NEERAMANKARA, KAIMANOM.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695040. BY ADV. SRI.S.SUNIL MAURYAN RESPONDENTS:- --------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY,KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004. 2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER,KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,DISTRICT OFFICE,KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI-685508. BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC FOR PSC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 18317 of 2011(L) PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- P1: COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DTD.31.1.2008 VIDE CATEGORY NO.57/2008. P2: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.19.2.2009 VIDE NO.I.D.B(4)554/05/2 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE REPLY DTATED 4.10.2010 FURNISHED BY APPEAL AUTHORITY OF KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. P4: COPY OF THE COUNTER SIGNED CERTIFICATE OF EXPERIENCE ISSUED BY THE PRIVATE PRACTITIONER AND SENIOR MEDICAL OFFICER, GOVERNMENT SIDHA HOSPITAL, VALLAKKADAVU. P5: COPY OF THE INTERVIEW CALL LETTER DTD.15.3.2011. P6: COPY OF THE RANK LIST FOR THE POST OF ATTENDANT (SIDHA) DATED 6.6.2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL. ( True copy ) PA TO JUDGE. Kvs/- C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P(C) No.18317 of 2011-L. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8th August, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner was an applicant for appointment to the post of Attendant (Sidha). She submitted application pursuant to Ext.P1 notification dated 31.1.2008 issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission. This writ petition has been filed mainly with a prayer to declare that the permission granted by the first respondent Commission to the first three top rank holders in the list drawn pursuant to Ext.P1 notification to appear for interview is unsustainable. The further prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to delete their names from the rank list as they were ineligible to attend the interview. According to the petitioner, in the light of Note to Para.7(2) (iii) of Ext.P1 notification, the said three top rank holders should not have been permitted to participate in the interview as they had failed to produce the experience W.P(C) No.18317/2011-L. 2 certificate along with their applications. To attribute ineligibility on the said persons the petitioner also relies on Ext.P5. According to the petitioner, experience certificates should have been produced at least at the time of verification of the applications. The contention of the petitioner is that the action on the part of the first respondent Commission in granting time to the said persons to produce the experience certificates is illegal and liable to be interfered with. Even according to the petitioner, the said persons as also certain other rank holders were given time by the first respondent to produce experience certificate which is required to be produced in terms of Ext.P1 notification. The contention of the petitioner is that since the said persons have failed to comply with the conditions, by not producing the experience certificates within the time originally fixed, the respondents are bound to delete their names from the rank list. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner W.P(C) No.18317/2011-L. 3 and also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The learned standing counsel submitted that the first respondent had adopted only a fair method in allowing all the candidates to produce necessary experience certificates in the prescribed manner and it can only be taken as granting of time to cure the minor defect. Such an action is permissible in the light of the decision of this court in Manoj Kumar v. K.P.S.C. reported in 1999(2) KLT 534, it is submitted. A perusal of the said judgment in Manoj Kumar's case would reveal that this court held that the PSC is competent to allow candidates to cure minor defects without compromising the conditions regarding age, educational qualification etc. In this case, the petitioner did not have a case that while allowing time to the said persons to cure the aforesaid defect, the Commission had compromised on conditions regarding age, educational qualification etc. As long as the action on the part of the Commission is only within the scope and power of the W.P(C) No.18317/2011-L. 4 Commission and such candidates were granted time only to cure the minor defects. Such action, in the light of the decision in Manoj Kumar's case (supra) calls for no interference. Moreover, evidently, the prayer of the petitioner is for deleting the names of the first three top rank holders from the ranked list. Even after making such a prayer the petitioner has not chosen to make those persons as parties to their writ petition. Therefore, on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties also, this writ petition is liable to fail. For the reasons mentioned above, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly it is dismissed. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, (JUDGE) Kvs/-