IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2010 / 12TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1849 of 2010(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JESSY CHACKO, THADATHIL HOUSE, THULAPPALLY PO, MUKKUTTUTHARA, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM PALACE PO, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KOTTAYAM REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, HEAD OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI FOR R3 SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.1849 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF JUNE, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner was an applicant to the post of Clerk/Cashier in the service of the District Co-operative Bank, Kottayam, pursuant to a notification issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission(KPSC) in the year, 2006. As per the notification, 50% of the vacancies are reserved for being filled up by the employees working in Primary Co- operative Societies affiliated to the District Co-operative Bank. The petitioner is working as the Secretary of the Erumeli Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Co-operative Society Ltd. No.K.453. She had submitted an application, under the 50% quota reserved for employees of Primary Co-operative Societies. She was called for a written test on 29.12.2007. According to the petitioner, nothing further was heard thereafter. Subsequently, the PSC published a rank list on 31.12.2009 in which the petitioner was not ranked. 2. The petitioner contends that at no point of time was she served with any notice calling upon her to produce her original documents. Wpc 1849/2010 2 Therefore, she submitted a representation before the Secretary of the Commission. She has filed this writ petition seeking another chance to produce her original records. It is contended that denial of such a chance would defeat the ends of justice. It is contended that the petitioner is over aged for any further appointment and therefore denial of the present chance would cause serious prejudice to her. 3. The KPSC, the first respondent in the writ petition, has filed a counter affidavit. According to the affidavit, the selection for which the notification was issued was to be made by transfer appointment. After the due process of selection, the probable list was published on 2.12.2009 and a press release was issued on 4.12.2009 which was also published in the Mathrubhoomi daily of 8.12.2009. The press release was issued with the object of notifying the candidates regarding the requirement of appearing for a personal verification of their Qualification Certificates on the designated dates. Memos were issued to individual candidates on 7.12.2009, including the petitioner requiring them to attend the personal verification on the notified dates. Accordingly, verification of Certificates of the candidates was Wpc 1849/2010 3 conducted on 16.12.2009, 17.12.2009, 18.12.2009 and 19.12.2009. However, the petitioner did not turn up for personal verification on any of the notified dates. Thereafter, the rank list was duly published by the Commission on 31.12.2009. Since the petitioner had not appeared for the personal verification, her name was not included in the rank list. 4. According to the learned counsel Mr.Alexander Thomas, who appears for the first respondent, Part II of the selection notification contains the general conditions regulating the selection and such general conditions form part and parcel of the selection notification. Clause 12B of the notification reads as follows:- “12 B- Candidates shall produce the original certificates for verification along with the self- attested copies of the original certificates to prove their date of birth, educational qualifications, experience, community etc, the preparation of the ranked list as and when required by the Commission. Candidates shall appear in person for verification of the original documents on the date, time and venue allotted by the Commission at their own expense. There will be no relaxation on any Wpc 1849/2010 4 circumstances to the condition that the candidates themselves shall appear in person for verification of original documents”. 5. Relying on the above provision, it is contended by the counsel for the first respondent that, it was obligatory on the part of a candidate to produce the original certificates for verification, by appearing in person, on one of the notified dates. The counsel also places reliance on two decisions of this court which are produced as Annexures R1(a) and R1(b). The question as to whether a candidate who fails to appear on the notified dates is to be granted a second opportunity to produce the original certificates was considered by a Division Bench of this court in Annexure R1(b) judgment. It has been held that there are no grounds to interfere with the action of the PSC for the reason that the Commission has acted strictly within the scope of its powers. 6. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the PSC was bound to give 15 days notice of the date fixed for verification of the original certificates. It is submitted that since the press release was published only in the issue of the Mathrubhoomi daily dated Wpc 1849/2010 5 8.12.2009, 15 days notice was not given in the present case. The counsel for the PSC opposes the above contention by pointing out that the press release was actually given on 4.12.2009 and therefore calculated from the said date, 15 days time gap was there between the last date fixed for scrutiny of certificates. No material has been produced before me to show whether there is any such stipulation that the PSC should provide a time gap of 15 days between the press release and the date fixed for personal verification of records. Therefore, I refrain from the entering any finding on this contention. 7. It is clear from Clause 12B relied on by the first respondent that it was incumbent upon the petitioner to produce her original certificates for verification. For the purpose of intimating the candidates of the dates of such verification, the method stipulated is to issue a press release and to issue individual memos by ordinary post. Since the PSC has followed both the above procedures, the action of the first respondent cannot be found fault with. The petitioner has produced Ext.P3, purporting to be a certificate issued by the postal authorities to the effect that no postal article from the first respondent Wpc 1849/2010 6 has been delivered to the petitioner during the period from 7.12.2009 to 31.12.2009. However, the certificate does not show the designation of the authority who has issued the same. Since the procedure followed by the PSC has been found to be in accordance with the relevant rules, matters cannot be improved even if Ext.P3 certificate is accepted to be genuine. It is not disputed that the final rank list was published on 31.2.2009. It has been held in the decision reported in Binimil K G V. KPSC(1997(2) KLJ 477) that it is not possible to alter the rank list once the same has been finalised and published. For the above foregoing reasons, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk