IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 20TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 4259 of 2011(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VEENA .S, AGED 36 YEARS, W/O.SETHUNATH, VADACKEVARIYAM, THONDANKULANGARA, AVALOOKUNNU PO, ALAPPUZHA 688 006. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA PUBLIC SRVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. SANDESH RAJA SRI. ALEXANDER THOMAS, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 4259 of 2011 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 9th day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a practicing lawyer belonging to the Hindu Ezhava community. She applied for the post of Secretary in Grama Panchayats pursuant to a notification inviting applications published by the Public Service Commission. In the application, the petitioner did not fill up the column relating to claim for reservation. She appeared for the interview and according to the petitioner, when it was pointed out to the petitioner that she has not claimed reservation, she has submitted a caste certificate in accordance with law. But she is not being considered as an Ezhava candidate and is being considered only as an open category candidate, is the grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition. The petitioner therefore seeks the following relief: “Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to include the petitioner in the rank list prepared for Ezhava community for the post of Grama Panchayat Secretary.” 2. The learned standing counsel for the Public Service Commission submits that the issue is squarely covered against the petitioner by the decision of this Court in Shaji v. Kerala Public Service Commission, 2011(1) KLT 99. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said decision can be distinguished on facts. According to counsel for the petitioner, in that decision, the petitioner therein had filled up the column relating to reservation in the negative, whereas in the petitioner's case, she bona fide omitted to fill up the column relating to reservation. I am of opinion that there is no distinguishing features between W.P(C) No. 4259/11 -: 2 :- the facts of the two cases in the matter of application of the law laid down by this Court. In both, the candidate has not claimed reservation in the application form. The law laid down in the above decision is that a candidate who did not claim benefit of reservation in the application form cannot subsequently claim benefit after the select list is published and Rule 40 of the Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, 1976 cannot be invoked as a matter of right by a candidate to allow the candidate to rectify a mistake in the application submitted before the Public Service Commission. Therefore, the said judgment is squarely applicable to the facts situation in this case also. Accordingly, following that decision this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.