IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2010 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35824 of 2010(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- VINEETHA, AGED 37 YEARS, W/O.PRASAD, KAYIKKARAVELI, MUHAMMA P.O., CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 004. 2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA.688 001 3. THE ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. 688 001. R1 & R2 BY ADV.SRI. ALEXENDER THOMAS, SC FOR KPSC R3 BY ADV. SRI. P.K.VIJAYAMOHAN, SC FOR DIST : CO.OP BANK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO.35824 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is aggrieved by the non inclusion of her name in the rank list published by the 1st respondent with respect to the post of Clerk/Cashier for appointment of various District Co- operative Banks. It is evident from Ext.P7 that the non inclusion of the petitioner's name in the rank list was because of the fact that the petitioner had mentioned a wrong category number in the application. The Commission had issued specific direction to reject applications wherein category number was wrongly mentioned. Petitioner admits that there was a mistake in the category number mentioned in the application. But the contention is that, subsequently the 1st respondent had permitted the petitioner to appear for written examination on the basis of Ext.P2 'Admission Ticket' issued, wherein the category was seen corrected. It is further contended that on the basis of that admission ticket the petitioner had already appeared for the written examination. Under such circumstances, according to the petitioner the application need to have been considered as WP(C)35824/2010 2 already corrected and the rejection is not sustainable, is the contention. 2. Learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent brings to my notice a decision of this court in Neena vs. Public Service Commission (2010(1) KLT 258). The issue involved in the said decision was identical. It was held by this court that mistake in mentioning the category code by the applicant in the application form is fatal and merely because a hall ticket was issued, it cannot be said that the Public Service Commission is bound by it and cannot at a later stage rejected the application . It is pointed out that there is no specific provision for allowing a candidate for correcting an entry in the category code and if such applications are accepted it will violate the instructions issued to the candidate and hence such practice could not be permitted. This court further observed that there cannot be any estoppal in these matters merely because the hall tickets were was issued to the petitioner and it could not be said that the commission is bound by it and cannot at a later stage reject the application. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner made an attempt to distinguish facts of the case at hand with that of the WP(C)35824/2010 3 decision cited above, on the ground that the petitioner in this case had actually participated in the written examination and she was qualified in the written test. 4. According to the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, the petitioner in the reported decision also was permitted to write the examination and she had participated in the written test as referred to in para 3 of the above said judgment. I do not find any distinction, even assuming that the petitioner in the reported decision had not participated in the written examination. Since the dictum laid down by this court is very clear to the effect that there is no estoppal against the rejection of the application at any later stage, merely because the 1st respondent had permitted in participating in the written examination, I am of the view that the question stands squarely covered against the petitioner. 5. It is also mentioned by the learned Standing Counsel that the decision reported supra was relied on in another judgment, WPC.No.34228/2009 which was taken up in appeal and the decision was affirmed by the Division Bench in WA.No.348/2010. 6. Under the above circumstances the writ petition WP(C)35824/2010 4 is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/