IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2011 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 25404 of 2009(U) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. PRAJIN KUMAR R., S/O.RAJAN T.V., AGED 24 YEARS, KOTTIYOTTU HOUSE, NANMANDA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. DEEPU GEORGE, VADAKKEVILA VEEDU, CHERUVAKKAL, AYOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. PRIYADARSINI C.M., CHERIYAMADATHIL HOUSE, PURAKKAD P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 4. FALIHA KOORIKKADAN, W/O.SHIHABUDHEEN P.P., CHAKKUPARAMBIL HOUSE, OMANOOR, CHERUVAYOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. PRAJISHA V.P., W/O.MANOJ C.P., CHERUVACHUNDAYIL HOUSE, CHETHUKADAVU, KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 6. SAFIYAMILI N., MANUKANDI HOUSE, KARASSERY P.O., MUKKOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 7. PRIYANKA K., KOLAVATTUMKARA, KEEZHPAYYUR P.O., MEPPAYYUR VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 8. SHIJINA N., KARAYATTUKANDI HOUSE, KEEZHPAYYUR P.O., MEPPAYYUR VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 9. ROHINI P.K., THETTELI HOUSE, PURAKKATTIRI P.O., ANGADIPURAM VIA., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. W.P.(C) NO.25404/2009 10. SARANYA S., KARAYIL METHAL HOUSE, KEEZHPAYYUR P.O., MEPPAYYUR VIA. KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 11. SAFIYA T., THYKKODATHIL HOUSE, KUNNAMANGALAM P.O., PAINGOTTUPURAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 12. LAILABI MADATHINGAL, MADATHINGAL HOUSE, VADAKKUMURI, ORANGATTIRI P.O., AREACODE VIA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 13. RAJANI.C., KALLANGIYIL HOUSE, KEEZHARIYOOR P.O., KOYILANDY VIA., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 14. NASRATH P.M., KURUPPANAKANDI HOUSE, ERAVATOOR P.O., PERAMBRA VIA., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 15. LIMNA K., PRINCE NIVAS, VAZHAKATTUPOYIL HOUSE, MANASSERY P.O., MUKKOM VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 16. RAHMATH T.M., W/O.SAINUDHEEN, CHENGOTTU HOUSE, MUTHUVALLUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 17. SHUHAIBA T., KARIYALIL HOUSE, PULIKKAL P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 18. SHAJNA B., PUTHIYAPARAMBATH HOUSE, SIDHASAMAJAM P.O., VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 19. ARUN P.C., PUTTADAMCHALIL HOUSE, PUNNASSERY P.O., NARIKKUNI VIA., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 20. SHABNA B., MUKKOL HOUSE, MANIYOOR P.O., PAYYOLI VIA., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 21. BIJULA K., PUTHENVEETTIL HOUSE, CHERUVAYOOR P.O., VAZHAKKAD VIA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. W.P.(C) NO. 25404/2009 22. REMYA B., POOKOTTUMPURATH HOUSE, NAYARKUZHI P.O., R.E.C. VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 23. JISHA.K., JISHA NIVAS, MUNDUPARAMBU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 24. SRUTHI K.M., KUTTIYATTUMETHAL, CHELANNUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 25. ROMILA.J., THIRUTHIYIL HOUSE, EDAKKAD P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 26. FASEELA.A., VELUMTHODI HOUSE, OLAVATTOOR P.O., KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 27. RABEEBA M.C, PARAKUNNATH, THRIKALAYOOR, KEEZHUPARAMBA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 28. SHAMSEERA KOTTAPARAMBAN, DHARUL AMAN KELOTH MILE, KONDOTTY P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 29. AJINU BHAI NOONCHADEN, ASWATHI BHAVAN, KARIPOOR P.O., KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 30. SANDHYA C.K., CHERIYAKOZHIKKAL HOUSE, ARIKKULAM P.O., KOYILANDY VIA., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 31. RESHMI R.S., MANASA HOUSE, ARIKKULAM P.O., KOYILANDY VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 32. SABANA C.T., VATTAKANDI HOUSE, NADUVATHOOR P.O., KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 33. THAYYIBA CHEMMANDAN, HARSHAD HOUSE, EKKAPARAMBU, KUZHIMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 34. HEMALATHA, THINNAKATHODI HOUSE, NADUVATH P.O., WANDOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. W.P.(C) NO.25404/2009 35. BINDU.T., PALLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHERKULATHUR P.O. 36. MUNEERA M.P., W/O.ABDUL RASHEED KODAKATTU, KODAKATTU HOUSE, KALOTH FIRST MILE, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 37. RAJEESH C.M., CHERUPEERI METHAL HOUSE, KALPATHUR P.O., MEPPAYYUR VIA., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 38. JASEELA.K., U.K.HOUSE, VALIYAPARAMBA P.O., PULIKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 39. BIJILA PALOTTA METHAL, VADAKKEPOYILANGALATH HOUSE, KARAYADU P.O., MEPPAYYUR VIA., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.BABU S. NAIR SMT.M.T.SHEEBA SRI.P.A.RAJESH SRI.K.RAKESH SMT.VRINDA PAUL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTAM, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE, MALAPPURAM. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2011, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 12122 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.( C) NO.25404/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION WAS PUBLISHED IN THE MATHRUBHUMI THOZHIL VARTHA DTD. 10.1.2009. P2:- COPY OF THE REJECTION MEMO ISSUED TO THE IST PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE REJECTION MEMO ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE REJECTION MEMO ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P5:- COPY OF THE REJECTION MEMO ISSUED TO THE 4TH PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P6:- COPY OF THE REJECTION MEMO ISSUED TO THE 5TH PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT P7:- COPY OF THE REJECTION MEMO ISSUED TO THE 6TH PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P8:- COPY OF THE REJECTION MEMO ISSUED TO THE 7TH PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P9:- COPY OF THE REJECTION MEMO ISSUED TO THE 8TH PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P10:- COPY OF THE REJECTION MEMO ISSUED TO THE 9TH PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P11:- COPY OF THE REJECTION MEMO ISSUED TO THE 10TH PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P12:- COPY OF THE REJECTION MEMO ISSUED TO THE 11TH PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P13:- COPY OF THE REJECTION MEMO ISSUED TO THE 12TH PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P14:- COPY OF THE REJECTION MEMO ISSUED TO THE 13TH PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P15:- COPY OF THE REJECTION MEMO ISSUED TO THE 14TH PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P16:- COPY OF THE REJECTION MEMO ISSUED TO THE 15TH PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. W.P.(C) NO.25404/2009 P17:- COPY OF THE REJECTION MEMO ISSUED TO THE 16TH PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P18:- COPY OF THE REJECTION MEMO ISSUED TO THE 17TH PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P19:- COPY OF THE REJECTION MEMO ISSUED TO THE 18TH PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P20:- COPY OF THE REJECTION MEMO ISSUED TO THE 19TH PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P21:- COPY OF THE REJECTION MEMO ISSUED TO THE 20TH PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P22:- COPY OF THE REJECTION MEMO ISSUED TO THE 21ST PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P23:- COPY OF THE REJECTION MEMO ISSUED TO THE 22ND PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P24:- COPY OF THE REJECTION MEMO ISSUED TO THE 23RD PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P25:- COPY OF THE REJECTION MEMO ISSUED TO THE 24TH PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P26:- COPY OF THE REJECTION MEMO ISSUED TO THE 25TH PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P27:- COPY OF THE REJECTION MEMO ISSUED TO THE 26TH PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P28:- COPY OF THE REJECTION MEMO ISSUED TO THE 27TH PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P29:- COPY OF THE REJECTION MEMO ISSUED TO THE 28TH PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P30:- COPY OF THE REJECTION MEMO ISSUED TO THE 29TH PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P31:- COPY OF THE REJECTION MEMO ISSUED TO THE 30TH PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P32:- COPY OF THE REJECTION MEMO ISSUED TO THE 31ST PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. W.P.(C) NO.25404/2009 P33:- COPY OF THE REJECTION MEMO ISSUED TO THE 32ND PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P34:- COPY OF THE REJECTION MEMO ISSUED TO THE 33RD PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P35:- COPY OF THE REJECTION MEMO ISSUED TO THE 34TH PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P36:- COPY OF THE REJECTION MEMO ISSUED TO THE 35TH PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P37:- COPY OF THE REJECTION MEMO ISSUED TO THE 36TH PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P38:- COPY OF THE REJECTION MEMO ISSUED TO THE 37TH PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P39:- COPY OF THE REJECTION MEMO ISSUED TO THE 38TH PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P40:- COPY OF THE REJECTION MEMO ISSUED TO THE 39TH PETITIONER BY THE 3D RESPONDENT. P41:- COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT APPEARED IN THE MADHYAMAM DAILY DTD. 4.9.200. P42:- COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT APPEARED IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DTD. 4.9.2008. P43:- COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT APPEARD IN THE MADHYAMAM DAILY DTD. 6.9.2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) Nos. 25404/2009-U & 12122/2010-M - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of March, 2011. JUDGMENT Both these writ petitions raise a common issue. In W.P.(C) No.25404/2009 the petitioners are applicants to the post of L.P.S.A. in Malappuram District and in W.P.(C) No.12122/2010 the petitioners are applicants to the post of U.P.S.A. in the same District. 2. In both these writ petitions, the challenge is against the rejection of the applications submitted by the petitioners, by the Public Service Commission on the ground that they were belated. 3. Heard parties. 4. In both these cases interim orders have been granted by this Court allowing the petitioners to participate in the examination provisionally, subject to further orders to be passed in the writ petition. 5. It is argued that the petitioners have submitted the applications through post well in advance. Therefore, it is pointed out that the rejection of the same for the reason that they were received belatedly, cannot be justified. For the post of L.P.S.A., the last date shown in the notification was 4.2.2009 and accordingly most of the petitioners have sent their wpc 25404/2009 & 12122/2010 2 applications on or before 20.1.2009 and many of them have sent the applications between 13.1.2009 to 17.1.2009. Exts.P2 to P40 are the memos issued to the petitioners, rejecting the applications. 6. In W.P.(C) No.12122/2010 the notification is produced as Ext.P1 and the last date fixed for receipt of application was 4.2.2009. 7. Shri Babu S. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) NO.25404/2009 submitted that there would have been administrative delay in receiving the applications and processing the same. The same cannot be attributed to the petitioners. It is pointed out that the petitioners were allowed to participate in the written test and therefore it will be unjust to deny them the opportunity to participate in the further process of selection. 8. Separate counter affidavits have been filed by the Public Service Commission in both the writ petitions. It is pointed out in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.25404/2009 that all the applications received within the prescribed period, will be affixed with office seal noting the date of receipt of each application. The details of such applications were entered in the computer also. Out of the 13,881 applications received by post, 408 applications were received after the last date fixed for receipt of applications and hence they were rejected. 189 applications were rejected wpc 25404/2009 & 12122/2010 3 on various other grounds, making the total number of applications rejected as 597. It is stated that the delay in submitting the application is a ground to reject the same in terms of the provisions of the notification. It is pointed out that the petitioners had to sent their applications well in advance. The postal delay will not give any right to the petitioners to claim any relief against the Public Service Commission. Reliance is placed on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Binimil K.G. v. KPSC (1997 (2) KLJ 477), judgment in W.P.(C) No.2748/2009 and that of the Apex Court in Ashok v. PSC (2001 (2) KLT 788 - SC). It is pointed out that the principle emerging from the same is that if the candidate has violated any of the general conditions, the Public Service Commission is fully justified in rejecting the application. 9. Identical affidavit has been filed in W.P.(C) No.12122/2010 also. It shows that the total number of applications received is 30118. Out of this, 28694 applications were received within the last date fixed for receipt of applications and 1424 applications were rejected as they were received belatedly. Another 301 applications were also rejected on other grounds, making the number of admitted applications as 28393. 10. Evidently, in the light of the principles stated by this Court in wpc 25404/2009 & 12122/2010 4 various decisions relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel for the Public Service Commission, the stipulations contained in the general conditions are binding on the candidates. In a matter like this where the date on which the applications to be received are fixed well in advance, there cannot be any relaxation by the Public Service Commission in favour of individual candidates. The last date is fixed, evidently, for a definite purpose. The general conditions and its non compliance normally will result in rejection of the application. The rejection of the application cannot be said to be arbitrary, since it is based on the conditions in the notification itself. These conditions are fixed for the purpose of conducting the selection in a proper and fair manner and free from arbitrariness. Therefore, the rejection on the ground that the applications were received belatedly, cannot be said to be illegal. 11. Shri P.C. Sasidharan, learned Standing Counsel for the Public Service Commission submitted that it was the look out of the candidates to submit the application well in advance and normally no relief can be claimed against the Public Service Commission in these circumstances. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the participation in the selection process based on the interim order of this Court, cannot confer any wpc 25404/2009 & 12122/2010 5 right on the petitioners since the action of the Public Service Commission has to be upheld. 12. Shri Babu S. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision of this Curt in Jisha v. Public Service Commission (2004 (1) KLT SN page 88, C. No.114) and that of the Apex Court in Kewal Chand Mimani (D) by Lrs. v. S.K. Sen and others {(2001) 6 SCC 512} to contend that the petitioners are entitled for equitable relief. It is pointed out that the petitioners had great expectations for getting a career and if they are denied any benefit of participation in the selection process, it will cause undue hardship to them. The learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.12122/2010 supported these contentions. In Jisha's case (2004 (1) KLT SN 88, C. No.114) the issue was with regard to the extension of the time to produce documents. This Court was pleased to observe that the rigidity retained by the Public Service Commission for selection requires to be relaxed in such cases. But the situation herein is not identical. There, the candidate was required to produce documents claiming Scheduled Caste status. 13. In Kewal Chand Mimani's case {(2001) 6 SCC 512} the Apex Court while considering a matter relating to land acquisition, observed in wpc 25404/2009 & 12122/2010 6 para 27 thus: “It is on this score, the issue of complete justice between the parties has been brought to our notice. It is trite knowledge that presently, the law courts are being guided by a justice-oriented approach, since the concept of justice is the call of the day and the need of the hour. Justice is the goal of jurisprudence -- processual/procedural, as much as substantive. Puritan approach has lost its significance in the present-day context, sine justice ought to be the end product of enquiry and go to the roots. It is this complete justice between the parties which stands statutorily recognised in Section 108(A) as noticed above. (please see the observations of Krishna Iyer, J. in Ahmedabad Municipal Corpn. v. Ramanlal Govindram - AIR 1975 SC 1187)” 14. It is well settled that equitable relief cannot be granted by this Court if the same goes against the established general principles, statutory prescriptions and other regulations, etc. Herein, we are confronted with a case where the notification fixes a particular date as last date for receipt of the application. Therefore, by equitable considerations this Court will not be justified in extending the last date for various reasons stated by the petitioners. Normally, the qualifications of the candidates and other criteria will have to be fulfilled as on the last date of receipt of applications. Therefore, the same should be a definite date. Merely because the wpc 25404/2009 & 12122/2010 7 petitioners were able to participate in the written test based on the interim order, if ultimately the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed, that may not help them to participate in the further process of selection. Therefore, the plea that on equitable consideration they should be permitted to participate in the further selection process, cannot be considered at all. For all these reasons, the writ petitions fail and the same are dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/