IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2009 / 15TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 620 of 2009(W) ------------------------ PETITIONER: --------------- SUJITHA.A.P., W/O.JAYACHANDRAN, ERVIL, PILLCODE PO. KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY MR.M.SASINDRAN,ADVOCATE RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REP. BY SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY MR.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No.620/2009 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION IN RESPECT OF CATEGORY No.347/07 PUBLISHED BY THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION. EXT.P2: A PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE BOX IN FRONT OF THE P.S.C. OFFICE, KASARAGOD. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE B.Sc. CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3(a): COPY OF THE M.Sc. CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3(b): COPY OF THE B.Ed. CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE dvs T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.620 OF 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of August, 2009. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed by the petitioner mainly complaining that the petitioner's application for appointment to the post of H.S.A (Maths) was not considered by the Public Service Commission. Exhibit P1 is the notification published by the P.S.C. The petitioner has averred in paragraph 2 of the writ petition that in response to Exhibit P1 notification, the petitioner submitted her application directly to the office of the P.S.C. The petitioner deposited her application in the box kept in front of the office of the first respondent. 2. The petitioner had approached this Court in the light of the fact that she was not given any intimation to appear for the written test to be held on 10.01.2009. As per the interim order passed in this writ petition, the petitioner was allowed to participate in the written test on provisional basis subject to final orders in the writ petition. W.P.(C) No.620/2009 2 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is pointed out that the notification in respect of the post in question in Kasaragod District was published in the official gazette dated 31.10.2007. A total of 598 applications were provisionally admitted for the OMR Test held on 10.01.2009. 9 applications were rejected on various grounds. On receipt of the representation from the petitioner, a thorough search was conducted both manually and on computer and it was found that no such application with Barcode No.20156127 was received in the District Office of the KPSC, Kasaragod. As the computer is equipped with Global Search facility, the same was also resorted to and gathered the information that the petitioner had applied only for the posts of UPSA 88/05, LVEO 73/06, LGS (Various) 56/06 and LDC (Various) 168/06. Accordingly, she was given a reply also in the matter. 4. In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit, the respondents have pointed out that there is a flawless system for maintaining the registers in the District Office. The averments show that the applications received by post and those dropped in the box kept at the office are sorted post wise on each day with utmost W.P.(C) No.620/2009 3 circumspection and sanction. After having sorted out post wise, date seal is stamped, tapal number is imprinted and barcode reading done with the help of the Barcode reader attached with computer. The system is equipped with Global search facility and therefore, on feeding a given barcode the details of the application can be immediately traced out. All means, both technical and manual, were utilized to see whether the petitioner had applied for the post, but no proof of her application could be gleaned. It is therefore submitted by the respondents that the petitioner had not submitted any application. 5. In the light of the above factual position, it cannot be said that the respondents should be directed to treat the petitioner as a valid applicant for the post. No other materials are produced by the petitioner in support of the plea that she had submitted a proper application. In that view of the matter, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp