IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2011/21ST SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 19758 of 2011 (T) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S) : ---------------------- K.P.REJIKUMAR, KOTTARATHIKKUZHY HOUSE, KIZHAKKAMBALAM P.O., THAMARACHAL, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI. S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND RESPONDENT(S) : ------------------------ 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695 004. 2. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, TRANS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695 014. 3. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, PERUMABAVOOR, PIN- 683 542. R1 BY SRI. P.C.SASIDHARAN, S.C., K.P.S.C. R2 & R3 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. SMT. SMITHA SUKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-08-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: NS WP(C).No. 19758 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE LETTER NO.GRIVB(3) 44613/07/GW DATED 5.7.2011 OF THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVIC COMMISSION ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE DATED 11.07.2011. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE DRIVING LICENCE PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE DRIVING LICENCE OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE PERIOD UP TO 24.06.2009. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 23.07.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE COMMISSION. RESPONDENT(S) ANNEXURES : ANNEXURE R3(A) : COPY OF THE DRIVING LICENSE REGISTER. ANNEXURE R3(B) : COPY OF THE INWARD REGISTER. / TRUE COPY / NS P.A. TO JUDGE C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.19758 of 2011-T. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 12th August, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner has responded to the notification issued by the Public Service Commission for appointment to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector in the Motor Vehicles Department. After a written test he was included in the short list of candidates for interview. Thereupon, as per Ext.P1, the petitioner was required to appear on 20.7.2011 for verification of his qualification certificates and for the interview to be held on the next day if satisfied regarding the genuineness of his qualifying certificates. It also carried an intimation regarding the non-acceptability of the experience certificate produced by him and a consequential direction to submit experience certificate in the prescribed proforma. He was also required to produce the driving licence particulars obtained from the Motor Vehicles Department. Subsequently, the petitioner has WP(C).No.19758/2011-T. 2 obtained Ext.P2 certificate of experience in the prescribed form in tune with the directions in Ext.P1. For getting the driving licence particulars the petitioner had submitted an application to the present Licensing Authority ie., the Sub Regional Transport Officer, Perumbavoor. The prescribed fee therefor was also remitted. Ext.P3 is the driving licence particulars furnished to the petitioner pursuant to his application. The last sentence in Ext.P3 which is relevant for this case, reads thus: “V142/275, RENEWAL UPTO 24.6.2009 IS NOT GENUINE HENCE CANCELLED, BADGE NO. CORRECTED AS PER REGISTER.” The above entry is to the effect that the particulars available in page 275 of Volume 142 of the Register kept by the Department relating to renewal of the badge upto 24.6.2009 is not genuine and hence cancelled. The contention of the petitioner is that the statement in Ext.P3 that the renewal statement thereon to the effect that renewal upto 24.6.2009 was not genuine is factually incorrect. To substantiate the said contention the petitioner WP(C).No.19758/2011-T. 3 is relying on Ext.P4. Ext.P4 is the copy of his driving licence for the period upto 24.6.2009. In Ext.P4 would show that the petitioner's licence was valid and renewed upto 24.6.2009. Therefore, it is contended that the entry in Ext.P3 is incorrect. It is further contended that the omission on the part of the then Joint Regional Regional Transport Officer, Perumbavoor viz., S.Asokan who renewed the badge upto 24.6.2009 to make necessary entries in the concerned Register by noting the renewal upto 24.6.2009 cannot be a reason for treating the certificate produced by the petitioner and also the entry thereon as not genuine. In other words, according to the petitioner, it has occurred only due to the omission on the part of the concerned Joint Regional Regional Transport Officer, Perumbavoor and it cannot be a reason for depriving him of the opportunity to participate in the selection process. It is in the said circumstances that this writ petition has been filed. 2. Obviously, the contentions raised in this writ petition is to the effect that the petitioner had remitted the WP(C).No.19758/2011-T. 4 prescribed fee for getting renewal of his badge and that factor was duly entered in the relevant records. In view of the said assertion on the part of the petitioner the relevant records were called to see whether the petitioner had actually remitted the amount and a corresponding entry had been made in the relevant records. It was a futile exercise as no such entry could be found in the relevant records. In the circumstances the contention that the petitioner had remitted the requisite fee made in the writ petition cannot be taken as true and correct. At any rate, in the absence of any material to show that the remarks made in Ext.P3 is incorrect the contentions of the petitioner cannot be upheld. In fact, earlier this Court passed an order on 26.7.2011 whereby the 3rd respondent was required to verify the TR5 receipt book for the relevant period as to whether the contention of the petitioner that he had remitted the fee is correct or not. However, the respondents could not locate the concerned receipt book. The 3rd respondent has also filed a statement containing such averments. In short, WP(C).No.19758/2011-T. 5 there is no material available before this Court to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner had remitted the prescribed fee in time, as alleged. The respondents held that the petitioner is not entitled and eligible to take part in the selection process. In the absence of any material to the contrary the view taken by the respondents cannot be held as illegal or arbitrary. At the same time, before parting with the judgment I am constrained to make an observation that the manner in which the concerned records have been kept by the respondents requires verification and appropriate corrective measures by the higher ups. It is inevitable as improper maintenance of such relevant records may ultimately cause prejudice to the concerned parties. For the foregoing reason this writ petition is liable to fail. Accordingly this Writ Petition is dismissed. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, (Judge) Kvs/-