IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2009 / 1ST POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 30896 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- LEO J.RAJ, RAJ BHAVAN, MITHRA NIKETHAN, VELLANAD P.O., TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC FOR KPSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.30896 OF 2009 (F) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext.P2 communication issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission and seeks a direction requiring the PSC to accept Ext.P5 community certificate produced by him and acting upon the same to grant him the benefit of reservation. A declaration that the insistence on production of a fresh community certificate by the Commission is violative of the notification and is illegal is also sought for. 2. According to the petitioner, in response to the notification issued by the PSC, for selection to the post of Police Constable in Police Department(SAP-Thiruvananthapuram District) he submitted an application, claiming that being a scheduled caste candidate, he is entitled to the benefit of reservation. It is stated that in terms of Clause 15(c) and (d) of the General Conditions of notification, in all cases of granting reservation benefits, community certificate issued by the competent revenue authority not below the rank of a Tahsildar shall be produced along with the application for recruitment. The notification further WPC.No. 30896/09 :2 : provided that “Community certificate once obtained from the competent authority shall be treated as sufficient for all the subsequent applications to the Public Service Commission submitted by the same candidate, till the applicant gets recruited to any post by the Commission.” 3. According to the petitioner, in terms of Clause 15(e) of the General Conditions, candidates who have embraced the Hindu faith by convertion from Christianity should produce certificate from any of the institutions specified in the notification. It is stated that at the time of verification of certificates petitioner had produced all documents including Ext.P5 community certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Nedumangad dated 14.5.2005. When, Ext.P1 ranked list was published by the PSC, he was assigned rank No.873 with the benefit of reservation and it was indicated that his inclusion was provisional. It is stated that he was later issued Ext.P2 communication dated 14.10.2009, informing that he had not produced community certificate and that what he had produced was a time expired one. Petitioner WPC.No. 30896/09 :3 : was informed that unless he produces the certificate within 10 days, he will be removed from the ranked list. Thereupon this writ petition was filed with the prayers stated above. 4. Petitioner contends that Ext.P2 has been issued acting upon Ext.R1(a) Government Order, stating that the previous order providing 10 years validity period for community certificate has been cancelled and that henceforth, for each purposes separate certificates will be issued. Petitioner contends that irrespective of Ext.R1(a) Government Order, in view of the conditions of the notification, the community certificate obtained from the competent authority shall be treated as sufficient for all subsequent applications till the applicant gets recruited to any post by the Commission. It is stated that Ext.P5 satisfies the general conditions of the notification which binds not only the petitioner but also the Public Service Commission. Alternatively, it is also contended that Ext.R1(a) states that for each purpose, separate certificate will be issued. Petitioner refers to Exts.P5 and submits that this certificate itself mentioned that the same was issued for the purpose of production before the PSC. Therefore, according to him Ext.P5 satisfies the conditions of Ext.R1(a) and WPC.No. 30896/09 :4 : therefore ought to have been acted upon. Thirdly it was argued that in spite of the objections raised by the PSC, he is entitled to be treated as a general candidate and included in the ranked list. On these grounds petitioner submits that Ext.P2 threatening to remove him from the ranked list is illegal. 5. Public Service Commission has filed a counter affidavit and an additional counter affidavit. According to the PSC clause 15(d)(i) relied on by the petitioner was not part of the notification. It is stated that clause 15(d) as indicated in the notification provided that in all cases of SC/ST candidates, true copy of the community certificate (2 copies) issued by the competent revenue authority not below the rank of Tahsildar shall be produced as and when required by the PSC. It is stated that in OMR based selection, candidates need not enclose any documents along with the application and that the petitioner had not submitted any document along with the application. According to the PSC, in the application submitted by the petitioner, the community claimed by him is Hindu Cheramar,. However he did not produce any community certificate to that effect at the time of verification of certificates held on 21.4.2009. WPC.No. 30896/09 :5 : It is stated that on 21.4.2009, petitioner submitted Ext.R1(b) request confessing his inability to produce the community certificate and requesting for extension of time for production of the certificate. According to the PSC after lapse of 4 months, on 22.9.2009, petitioner submitted Ext.R1(c) representation stating that he had applied for a fresh community certificate and that on enquiry with the Taluk Office concerned, he could understand that the report in the matter of community certificate was delayed due to some complaints. On that basis, petitioner undertook to produce the community certificate immediately on its receipt and requested for time for that purpose. 6. PSC submits that it was along with Ext.R1(c) representation for the first time petitioner submitted a copy of Ext.P5 certificate which was issued 2 years prior to the selection notification. It is stated that under Rule 17-C of Part-II KS & SSR, certificate should be produced before finalization of the ranked list. It is stated that the ranked list was finalized on 5.10.2009 and that certificate was not produced before that date. In spite of the above, taking note of the request made in Ext.R1(c) and adopting a very lenient attitude, PSC included him in Ext.P1 ranked list WPC.No. 30896/09 :6 : on a provisional basis. It is stated that as the petitioner did not produce the community certificate as promised by him, Ext.P2 memo was issued on 16.10.2009 calling upon him to produce a fresh community certificate and informing that on his failure, he will be removed from the ranked list. 7. PSC points out that realizing his obligation to produce a fresh community certificate, petitioner did not even request that Ext.P5community certificate should be accepted by the PSC. On the other hand, according to them, petitioner undertook to produce the certificate. It is stated that removal from the ranked list is the natural consequences of the failure of a candidate to produce the required certificate in support of the community status claimed by him in the application. In so far as the obligation of the candidate to produce the community certificate is concerned, PSC states that, as clearly stated in Ext.R1(a) that the previous order providing 10 years validity period for community certificate stands revoked and that certificates should be obtained for each specific purpose. It is stated that Ext.R1(a) governed even pending recruitment and that the PSC is bound by such Government orders. Proceeding further it is stated that the WPC.No. 30896/09 :7 : PSC has taken steps to modify the general conditions of notification on the basis of the above said Government order. In so far as the plea that, at any rate, he should be included in the ranked list as a general candidate, PSC submits that if a person makes an application describing himself as a SC candidate, his candidature is liable to be rejected, if he fails to prove his SC status. In such a situation, it is argued that there is no question of considering such candidate as a general candidate. On these grounds, the PSC seeks to justify its stand. There is no reply affidavit filed by the petitioner. 8. From the counter affidavit filed by the PSC, it can be seen that the PSC has raised very serious allegations that the petitioner has suppressed many factual aspects and has attempted to mislead this court. As already seen, the tenor of the averments in the writ petition and the assertions made in the pleadings is that the petitioner had produced Ext.P5 community certificate along with the application filed by him. It is specifically averred that at the time of certificate verification the petitioner had produced all documents including Ext.P5 certificate. Ext.R1(a) was issued only on 23.9.2008, after the WPC.No. 30896/09 :8 : recruitment process commenced by notification dated 15.9.2007 and the general conditions of the notification provided that certificate once obtained shall be treated as sufficient for all subsequent applications, till the applicant gets recruited to any post by the PSC. In paragraph 7 of the additional counter affidavit filed by the PSC, it is specifically stated that it has taken step to modify the general conditions of the notification on the basis of Ext.R1(a) Government Order referred to above. This means that the aforesaid was the condition of the notification, and that Ext.R1(a) Government Order was issued subsequent to the notification. PSC and the candidate are both bound by the conditions of the notification and both cannot be allowed to depart from the same. If that be so, the contention of the petitioner that the PSC ought to have acted upon the certificate produced by him, calls for a closer examination. This claim could have been made by the petitioner only if he was able to prove that he had produced Ext.P5 certificate at the time of certificate verification as averred by him in the writ petition. The averments in the concluding sentence of paragraph 4 of the writ petition are to the effect that the petitioner had produced all the WPC.No. 30896/09 :9 : certificates before the PSC at the time of verification of the documents. In Ext.R1(c) also petitioner states that he had produced Ext.P5 before the PSC and had enclosed a copy of Ext.P5 along with Ext.R1(c). 9. However, in the counter affidavit filed by the PSC it is stated that the petitioner had not produced any certificate either along with the application or at the time of certificate verification. According to PSC, on 22.9.2009, the petitioner submitted Ext.R1 (c) representation seeking time for producing fresh community certificate and that it was along with Ext.R1(c), for the first time the petitioner produced a copy of Ext.P5 certificate dated 19.5.2005. There is no affidavit in reply to this counter affidavit. There is also no other material in this case at least to infer that this statement of the PSC is wrong. Therefore the petitioner has not proved that he had produced Ext.P5 community certificate on 21.4.2009, when certificates were verified, which he ought to have done. It is true that a candidate has the opportunity to produce the certificate before finalization of ranked list and that along with Ext.R1(c), petitioner produced Ext.P5 certificate before finalizing Ext.P1 ranked list. However, Ext.R1(c) also shows that WPC.No. 30896/09 :10 : the petitioner has accepted the requirement of producing a fresh certificate and there is no request made to the PSC to accept Ext.P5 certificate. On the other hand the request made is for time to produce certificate. If that be the position, the PSC which could have rejected his application, cannot be faulted for having him included in the ranked list on a provisional basis. Consequently, PSC also cannot be faulted for having issued Ext.P2 communication, since admittedly petitioner has not produced the certificate. 10. The further claim of the petitioner is that, at any rate, he ought to have been considered as a general candidate. This claim of the petitioner is covered against him in view of the judgment of this court in Rangaswamy V. Kerala Public Service Commission (1982 KLT 574). Subsequently, similar claim raised has been rejected by this court in the judgment in WP(c).No.19692/07, which was confirmed by the Division Bench in the judgment in W.A. No.377/08. Therefore, if a person claiming to be a Scheduled caste fails to produce documents to substantiate his claim, the application is liable to be rejected and he cannot claim to be treated as a general candidate. WPC.No. 30896/09 :11 : 11. It is true that the petitioner's claim as a SC candidate was accepted by the PSC in certain other selections. However, that does not relieve him of his obligation to produce community certificate when applications are made again. Therefore arguments raised relying on Ext.P6 ranked list for Villageman or Ext.P7 interview call letter for the post of Excise Guard, will not improve his case in any manner. It should also be mentioned that this case deserves dismissal for the misleading facts pleaded and suppression of true facts. It needs no reiteration that remedy under Article 226 is discretionary and a litigant invoking this jurisdiction, has to plead facts truly and honestly. This case does not meet that standard. However, having regard to the fact that being an unemployed youth, he would have raised the pleadings in his anxiety to secure an employment, I leave it at that, lest it may affect his future prospects. For these reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/