IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2009 / 10TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1811 of 2009(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SAJEESH K., VIRUSSERIL, NORTH ARYAD P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB P.ALEX RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER (IRRIGATION & ADMINISTRATION), DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO: 1811 of 2009 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT In this case, the application submitted by the petitioner for selection to the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) under the Department of Irrigation stands rejected by the Kerala Public Service Commission as per Ext.P4 for the reason that there is difference in the signature in the application and the one put at the time of interview. 2. The petitioner was assigned Registration No.100894 for appearing in the written test on 6.1.2007. Ext.P2 is the Admission Ticket and Ext.P3 is the interview card. The interview was held on 6.8.2008. Apparently, the difference in the signature of the petitioner seen in the application form and the one obtained at the time of interview, was noticed and he was directed to give an explanation in the matter. 3. According to the petitioner, there was a time gap about two years between the date of submission of application and interview. He had attributed one more reason; that he was involved in an accident while playing cricket and had dislocation in the middle finger(Right hand) and the alleged difference may wpc:1811 of 2009 2 also be due to this fact. It is pointed out that at the relevant time of the submission of application he was undergoing treatment by Dr.Manoj V.V., Orthopdic Surgeon, Medical College, Alappuzha. Ext.P4 is the ranked list published on 11.15.2008. His name was not included therein. Ext.P5 is the representation submitted by the petitioner seeking for inclusion in the ranked list and offering explanation regarding the difference in the two signatures. 4. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit. It is pointed out that the petitioner was not included in the ranked list for the above mentioned post as difference in signature was noticed in the application and that subscribed by the candidate during certificate verification and in other related documents. Exts.R1(a) & R1(b) are the copies of application submitted by the petitioner and the Identification Certificate, bearing the signature respectively. Ext.R1(c) is the Circular issued containing guidelines for the Commission to act in such cases. It is pointed out that the petitioner had submitted an application Ext.R1(d) explaining all facts regarding the difference in signature in the application. Still, the Commission maintains the stand that in view of the difference in signature in the wpc:1811 of 2009 3 application, his application was rejected and his name was not included in the ranked list, rightly. 5. In Ext.R1(c), the procedure prescribed shows that on verification of the documents, if the Commission finds any difference is there in the signature in the application, then a statement in writing from the candidate has to be taken showing the reasons for the difference. After examining it, if it could be seen that the difference arose not due to any deliberate action, the application can be accepted. If the Commission finds that there is evidence to show that the applicant is not the person who has subscribed the signature either in the application or in the documents, the application could be rejected. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the light of Exts.R1(c) and R1(d) the explanation made by the petitioner ought to have been accepted by the Commission. He has stated therein that the difference occurred because of the lapse of time between the date of submission of the application and the date on which the certificate was verified. 7. I find force in the above argument raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. When the candidate has wpc:1811 of 2009 4 given due explanation, going by R1(c), it can be accepted unless there is evidence on the contrary. There is nothing to show that the difference arose due to any deliberate action. Therefore, unless there are sufficient evidence before the Commission to show that it is not the candidate who has subscribed signature on the application and on the documents, Ext.R1(d) certificate given by the candidate has to be accepted. In the absence of any evidence contrary, the explanation has to be accepted. Therefore, the rejection of the application of the petitioner cannot be sustained. There will be a direction to the 1st respondent Commission to include the name of the petitioner at the appropriate place in the ranked list, if he is found otherwise eligible and going by the results. In that process if it is found that any candidate lower in the list has been already advised and appointed, the rights of those candidates will not be affects by this direction. The writ petition is allowed as above. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE bps