IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2008 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 38228 of 2007(A) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- JOY JOSEPH, L.D.CLERK, SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, VYTHIRI, WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.J.OMPRAKASH. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE JOINT SECRETARY, DEPARTMENTAL TESTS, PSC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRIL ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2008, ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NOS.38229/2007, 119/2008 & 158/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.38228/2007-A: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 15/12/2007 NO. DE V/5033/07/EW. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.38228 & 38229 of 2007, 119 & 158 of 2008 ------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2008. JUDGMENT Similar issues arise in these writ petitions and therefore, they have been considered together and disposed of by this common judgment. W.P.(C)No.119/08 is taken as the leading case. 2. The petitioner had applied for the departmental test conducted by the Public Service Commission on 7.1.2008. Her application was rejected on the ground that she had not mentioned her designation therein. The same has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. 3. Pursuant to an interim order passed on 2.1.2008, the petitioner appeared for the departmental test. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the defect in her application, as noted in Ext.P1, is as follows: “Your designation is not mentioned in the application.” 5. Reference is made to Ext.P2 application form and it is pointed out that only certain defects are treated as fatal. Reference is made to Column VII forming part of the instructions to the candidates, wherein it is pointed out that “the signature of the applicant on the 1st W.P.(C).NO.38228/07 & con.cases :: 2 :: page of the application is mandatory and absence of such signature will result in summary rejection of the application”. The format of the application is also referred to. It is contended that the test in question is a departmental test. After all, the lapse on the part of the applicant to mention the designation does not result in the Public Service Commission being put to difficulties in identifying the applicant. The application submitted by a departmental candidate is to be attested by the Head of the Office as well. 6. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, Sri.Omprakash, Sri.Ramachandran Nair and Sri.Grashious Kuriakose and learned standing counsel for the Public Service Commission Sri.Alexander Thomas. 7. Inconsequential defects in the application form should entail a rejection of the application itself. There could be defects in the application, which are curable. Where they are curable, the Commission should afford an opportunity to the candidates to cure the defects. If the defect is one, which is clearly mentioned as fatal in the application form itself, then the consequences should follow. If not, the further point of enquiry is whether, they are of such a nature that it would be advisable for the Commission to permit the W.P.(C).NO.38228/07 & con.cases :: 3 :: applicant to cure the same. The absence of any prejudice, by reason of the defect, being caused to any other applicant is also a matter which would weigh the Commission. The principles that should govern the Commission, in this regard, have been laid down by this court in Manoj Kumar v. Kerala Public Service Commission {1999(2) KLT 534} followed in Prasad v. Kerala Public Service Commission {2004(1) KLT SN page 26}. 8. In my view, the issue may, therefore, be considered by the Public Service Commission. 9. In the result, the writ petitions are disposed of in the following lines: (a) The Commission may consider whether the defects noted in the rejection memos issued in each one of the cases itself is condonable or curable, as the case may be. (b) If they are so curable and condonable, an opportunity may be granted to the petitioners, to cure the same. (C) If the Public Service Commission feels that the defects cannot be and should not be permitted to be cured or condoned, then it shall issue a notice to the applicant conveying its proposal to do so. Then the applicants will be entitled to submit his/her objections and if the Commission decides to to affirm the proposal, it shall pass an order indicating its W.P.(C).NO.38228/07 & con.cases :: 4 :: reasons for arriving at such a decision and communicate the same to the applicants. (d) The participation of the petitioners in the respective examinations shall be treated as regular and valid subject to the decision to be taken by the Commission as aforementioned. (e) If the Commission finds that the defect involved in each one of the applications is curable and condonable, it should be condoned or allowed to be cured. (f) The results of the participation of each one of the applicants shall be declared and further consequential action taken, subject to the decision to be taken by the Commission as mentioned above. The entire process as outlined above shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy//