IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2010 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 25549 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.B.RADHAKRISHNAN, PEON, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL METROLOGY, PERINTHALMANNA. BY ADV. SRI.H.BADARUDDIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC FOR R THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 25549 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 19th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner's candidature for the post of Inspecting Assistant in the Department of the Legal Metrology was rejected by the Public Service Commission on the ground that the petitioner has not signed the application form submitted by him for the post. According to the petitioner, in an identical case, this Court had directed that notwithstanding the fact that the candidate has not signed the application, his application can be considered. The PSC has filed an affidavit, wherein in paragraph 8, it is stated thus: “Regarding the averment of the petitioner in para 4 of the W.P(c) it is stated that in the case of Jayalekshmi Vs. KPSC (judgment dated 19.9.09 in W.P(c) No.12623/09) the Hon'ble Court ordered to treat the application of the petitioner as valid even though it is unsigned, on the ground that the Commission has invited applications by conventional forms and through online. In conventional method affixing the signature is compulsory whereas no signature is needed for applying by on line. The Division Bench has granted stay in WA 2671/09 (arising out of W.P 12623/09) filed by the KPSC. It has been held by this Hon'ble court in the judgment reported in 1992(1) KLT S.N. P.20 that in new of the conditions in the PSC notifications that unsigned applications is liable for rejection, the Court cannot direct the PSC to entertain such defective application even on sympathetic considerations. It has been categorically laid down therein that the condition which is necessary for due precessing of the application cannot be considered as irrelevant and superfluous and that the said condition is not empty formality and is not merely irregularity which can be cured later. When the notification says that the forms filled should be signed by the applicant, it cannot be overlooked when it is specific that non-compliance would lead in rejection of application. It has been categorically held by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case between T.Jayakumar Vs. A.Gopy & Anr. Reported in 2008 (9) SCC 403. that the decision to reject the application as invalid for want of signature 2 cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable. The Apex Court has further held therein that the selection authority has the power to reject such defective applications even after permitting the candidate to attend the interview and that there is no estoppel against the selection authority in that regard.” I am also of opinion that a candidature of an applicant who has submitted an unsigned application cannot be considered under law. In the above circumstances, following the above said decisions quoted by the Public Service Commission in the affidavit, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge