IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2009 / 19TH POUSHA 1930 OP.No. 28375 of 2001(C) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BABU.M.S., MALACKAKUDY HOUSE, NEDUNGAPRA P.O., VIA.KURUPPAMPADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 683 545. BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT., PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. K.P.S.C. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, O/O. THE KPSC, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM-4. 3. THE DIRECTOR, VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, TRIVANDRUM. 4. PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT POLY TECHNIC, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. M.S.BABU, MULACKAKUDY HOUSE, NEDUNGAPRA P.O., VIA.KURUPPAMPADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - PIN 683 545. ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS: 6. SUPERINTENDENT, GOVT. PRESS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION AND ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (ADDL.R6 AND R7 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.NO. 687/07 DTD.7.6.07) ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC SRI.T.A.SHAJI FOR R5 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED ANZAR THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.No. 28375/01 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF NOTIFICATION IN THE GAZETTE. P2. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE R2 DTD.30.10.99. P3. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO THE VIGILANCE DTD.30.10.99. P4. COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 8.10.02 OF THE S.P. VIGILANCE CELL, PSC. P5. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.2.12.89 OF THE SECRETARY OF PSC. P6. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.26.11.08 FROM THE CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION AND ADMINISTRATION. P6A. COPY OF THE IDENTIFICATION CERTIFICATE. P6B. COPY OF THE -DO- P6C. COPY OF THE -DO- P6D. COPY OF THE 7TH PAGE OF THE SERVICE BOOK OF R5. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: R5A. COPY OF THE MARK LIST OF FINAL YEAR DIPLOMA EXAMINATION. B. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.16.8.90 OF SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION CIRCLE, KOZHIKODE. C. COPY OF THE 3RD PAGE OF JTSSLC BOOK OF R5. D. COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF ORDER DTD.18.8.90 OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, KANNUR. E. COPY OF THE DIPLOMA CERTIFICATE DTD.20.8.87 OF R5. F. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.6.12.89 TO R5 BY PSC. G. COPY OF THE 4TH AND 7TH PAGES OF JTSSLC BOOK CONTAINING THE SIGNATURES OF R5. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 28375 of 2001 ================== Dated this the 9th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner and the 5th respondent have the same name, same initial and same address. They are cousins. The petitioner submitted application pursuant to the notification issued by the PSC for selection to the post of Overseer Grade III (Civil) in the Public Works Department. The petitioner did not get advice and appointment. Subsequently, the petitioner went abroad in search of employment. When he came back, he came to know that the 5th respondent got appointment in the said selection. According to the petitioner, that appointment was by impersonating the petitioner. In the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this original petition seeking the following relief: “I. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to take effective and expeditious action on Exts.P2 and P3 to throw out the 5th respondent from service and enable the petitioner to get appointment as Overseer Grade III with effect from the due date with all consequential benefits within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.” 2. The petitioner would contend that the entire process of appointment of the 5th respondent is very suspicious. He relies mainly on Ext.P6(a) series which are identification certificates of the 5th respondent issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission in several o.p.28375/01 2 selections. The petitioner points out that Ext.P6(a) is the identification certificate for the selection, which is in question in this original petition. According to the petitioner, the signature of the 5th respondent in Ext.P6(a) drastically differs from that in Exts.P6(b) and P6(c). In Ext.P6(c) the 5th respondent signed on the photograph extending the signature to the certificate also, whereas in Ext.P6(a) the signature is confined to the photograph alone, which is not the normal procedure for putting the signature in the photograph in an identification certificate so as to obviate the possibility of substituting the photograph. The petitioner further points out that there is difference between Ext.P5 and Ext.R5(f) which are communications issued by the PSC, printed in the Government press in the same series. The petitioner points out that both are issued for the same selection and both contained the same endorsement from the Government Press. But the arrangement of signatures in both differs, although the matter is the same. The petitioner points out that in Ext.P5, below the signature of the signatory of the communication, there is initial of the Section Clerk on the left hand side, whereas in Ext.R5(f), the initial is just below the signature of the author. According to the petitioner, these are circumstances sufficient to come to the conclusion that there is some manipulation in the matter of selection of the 5th respondent for appointment warranting a detailed enquiry by an appropriate o.p.28375/01 3 authority. 3. Counter affidavits and additional affidavits have been filed by the 5th respondent. He would categorically deny every allegation raised by the petitioner. According to him, signature appearing in Ext.P6(a) was his signature in the year 1988 whereas the signatures obtaining in Exts.R5(b) and R5(c) were put on 5.8.2003 and 6.12.2005. According to him, in 1988 he was fresh out of the school and he had not yet decided on a permanent signature as such. To prove this, he has also produced Ext.R5(g) which is the extract from his SSLC book, wherein the signature of the 5th respondent is the same as in Ext.P6(a). According to the 5th respondent, subsequently, when, pursuant to the selection, he joined, the Section Clerk warned him that signature to be put by him would be final and he cannot thereafter change it and, therefore, he decided to have a stylish signature adding his initial also, which resulted in the changed signatures in Exts.P6(b) and P6(c). He would point out that the petitioner has filed the complaint eight years after the 5th respondent's appointment, which itself is sufficient to dismiss the original petition. According to the 5th respondent, there is no reason to suspect any manipulation in the 5th respondent's selection. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. I note that the 3rd respondent, as per the direction of this o.p.28375/01 4 Court, conducted an enquiry and filed a statement, wherein they have stated that there is no manipulation in the selection process. It is also pointed out that the 5th respondent's is more qualified than the petitioner. The petitioner is only an SSLC holder with 210 marks and ITI certificate, whereas the 5th respondent passed Junior Technical School Leaving Certificate course with 70.7 per cent marks. He has also passed Diploma in Civil Engineering. It is pointed out that subsequently he has studied privately and passed Civil Engineering B.Tech. in December, 2000. 6. The learned Government Pleader has obtained a report from the Government Press in this regard in the wake of the dispute raised by the petitioner regarding the discrepancy between Ext.R5(f) and Ext.P5. According to the learned Government Pleader, the report filed discloses that the discrepancy may have occurred because of printing in two batches simultaneously because of the large number of forms required to be printed. 7. The PSC would submit that apart from the rank list and advice memo, they are not in possession of any other records relating to the selection in question in view of passage of time. As such, it is impossible to conclusively decide the dispute raised in this matter. As is clearly stated by the 3rd respondent in his statement to the effect that although the PSC was addressed for forwarding those documents, o.p.28375/01 5 only rank list and advice memo were made available. I am unable to indict a person on the basis of such totally inconclusive materials. The petitioner may have at the most succeeded in showing a vague suspicion with the materials which he has relied upon. The explanation submitted by the 5th respondent in respect of those materials, does not appear to be unconvincing. In the above circumstances, I am not prepared to interfere with the selection of the 5th respondent on such totally inconclusive materials. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this original petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================ O.P.No. 28375 of 2001-C ================ J U D G M E N T 9th January, 2009