IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 14TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 2044 of 2011(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. PREETHAKUMARI.P.S., AGED 37 YEARS, W/O. KUTTAPPAN, MANNAMVILA VEEDU, KALLIYUR.P.O. TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. 2. GIRI.A.S. AGED 37, S/O. APPUKUTTAN, MANNAMVILA VEEDU, KALLIYUR, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.MOHANAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, VELLANIKKARA, TRICHUR DISTRICT. 680 619. 2. PROFESSOR AND HEAD OF SECTION, INSTRUCTIONAL FARM, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY VELLAYANI,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 522. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.MUJEEB, SC, KERALA AGRI UNIVERSITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 2044 of 2011-E - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2011. JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed seeking for a direction to the respondents to accept the application of the petitioners by treating it as valid and to accept the additional documents produced. The petitioners belong to Scheduled Caste community. The second respondent, by notification dated 15.7.2010 invited applications for appointment to the post of casual labourers in the Instructional Farm, Agricultural University, Vellayani. The applicants had to produce school certificate, nativity certificate, community certificate and certificate showing the age, etc. It is admitted in the writ petition that they could not produce the nativity certificate at the time of submitting the application, by mistake. Thereafter, they obtained the certificates. Exts.P1 to P6 were produced by them also. Exts.P7 and P8 the proceedings of the second respondent rejecting the applications of the petitioners. 2. A statement has been filed by the respondents. It is pointed out that in the circular dated 15.7.2010 calling for applications, it was specified that the candidates should furnish copies of documents to prove age, religion and caste, nativity certificate and educational qualification etc. duly wpc 2044/2011 2 attested by a Gazetted Officer along with the filled application on or before 5 p.m. on 20.9.2010. Mainly the application of the first petitioner was objected on the grounds shown in para 2 of the statement. But it appears that copies of various documents submitted along with the application for proving the age, caste, religion and educational qualifications, were not attested by a Gazetted Officer and the community certificate produced was not a recent one also. The nativity certificate was produced after the last date of receipt of application. In respect of the second petitioner, various certificates were not attested by a Gazetted Officer and the nativity certificate was produced only later. The community certificate was also not recently issued. According to the respondents, the petitioners are open candidates. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even the University has insisted the candidates to produce the documents only at the time of interview as evidenced by Ext.P9. It is a memo issued to one of the successful candidates. It is further pointed out that it is only a curable irregularity. 4. The question is whether the University could have relaxed the wpc 2044/2011 3 stipulations in the notification so as to accept the certificate produced by the petitioners after the last date of receipt of applications. 5. Evidently, the instructions to the candidates should have been observed properly by the petitioners. They are prescribed for having a proper procedure and for enabling the selection process to be conducted smoothly. Of course, if the appointing authority wanted to relax the conditions, they are fully empowered to do so. But learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the University cannot relax the stipulations at this stage since so many applications have been rejected on the same ground. In that view of the matter, it is only purely within the discretion of the respondents to decide to accept or reject the applications. Since they have chosen to reject the applications as the documents were not properly attested and some of them were not produced also, it cannot be said that the rejection is arbitrary. Learned Standing Counsel relied upon the clause in Ext.P9 and submitted that the conditions only mean that the successful candidates will have to produce the originals along with the attested copies and it does not mean that the applications need not accompany all the required documents. I find force in the above wpc 2044/2011 4 submission. 6. In that view of the matter, the rejection of the applications of the petitioners cannot faulted. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/