IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2009 / 14TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 20266 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1. SHAJI V., S/O.VINCENT, RESIDING AT CHERUPUSHPAM, NRA(E) 15, PEROORKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENTLY WORKING AS DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, NEDUMANGAD. 2. M.KALEELU RAHMAN, S/O.LATE S.M.ABDULLA, RESIDING AT ROSE HOUSE, MANNAMMOLA, PEROORKADA, DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, PRESENTLY WORKING ON DEPUTATION AS ASSISTANT PRIVATE SECRETARY TO MINISTER OF STATE OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. SRI.G.P.SHINOD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM PALACE PO THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE JOINT SECRETARY (DEPARTMENTAL TESTS) OFFICE OF THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC-KPSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).20266/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 6th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioners working in the Revenue Department appeared for a departmental test notified by the Kerala Public Service Commission as per Ext.P1. Clause 16 of Ext.P1 reads as follows:- Applications with the following defects will also be rejected. (a).Application not having any proof for remittance of prescribed fee. (b).Photograph of the applicant not affixed on the application/Admission Ticket. (c).Photograph not clear. (d).Photograph not attested by Head of Office/Gazetted Officer. (e).Designation Seal not affixed on the photograph. (f).Name of the attesting authority not mentioned. (g).Subject specifications in the application not clear. (h).Designation of the applicant not W.P.(C).20266/09 2 specified. (i).Office Seal of the attesting authority not affixed. (j).Certificate portion in Admission Ticket not affixed. (k).Applicant claimed for free chance, but not duly certified by the Head of Office concerned. (l).Applicant not eligible for exemption from remitting exam fee but applied for free chance. (m).Applicant already availed free chance apply for free chance again for a part of the test. 2. Applications submitted by the petitioners were defective. In the case of the 1st petitioner, the designation seal of the attesting authority was not affixed on the photograph and in the case of the 2nd petitioner, name of the attesting authority was not mentioned in the application. Both these defects are comprehended by Clause 16. Faced with Exts.P2 and P3 rejection memos, petitioners had approached this Court and by Ext.P6 judgment, this Court directed the PSC to consider whether the defects are curable or condonable and if so, W.P.(C).20266/09 3 whether they should be condoned or cured. The matter was considered by the PSC and by Exts.P8 and P9, Commission affirmed their stand. Exts.P2, P3, P8 and P9 have been challenged in this writ petition. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Commission. I heard Mr.Ram Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Alexander Thomas, learned counsel for the PSC. 4. Clause 16, if enforced would justify the stand taken by the Commission. After all, these defects which squarely come under Clause 16(e) and (f) are sufficient for the Commission to reject the applications. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr.Ram Mohan submits that no prejudice will be caused to any person if the defects in question are permitted to be corrected or cured as the case may be. 5. Learned counsel for the Commission invites my attention to a judgment of this Court in Binimil K.G. v. KPSC (1997 (2) KLJ 477) and the decisions which have been W.P.(C).20266/09 4 referred to therein. It has been the consistent stand taken by this Court that where norms are laid down in processing applications, the PSC are expected to adhere to the norms. Any action taken in relaxation of the rules would cause delay in processing the application and this has been considered by this Court while exercising powers in judicial review. After all any such relaxation on a case to case basis would invite arbitrary decisions at the hands of the officials who process the applications. In such circumstances, a uniform view, to stick to the norms formulated by the Commission to regulate their the actions, would only be appropriate. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners refers to Ext.P10 judgment, wherein the candidate omitted to mention the official designation of the applicant, entailed rejection of the application form. It is true that this Court had observed that the said defect could be cured and further observed with reference to the facts that since the applicant in the said case was working in Sub Treasury Office at Vizhinjam, it may not be difficult to identify the office and therefore, rejection of W.P.(C).20266/09 5 the application on the aforementioned ground may not be completely justified. 7. But there is one aspect with regard to the facts discernible from Ext.P10 judgment, which sets apart the present case. Defect by way of omission to mention the official address of the applicant is one which is curable by the applicant himself. But non mentioning of the name of the attesting authority or the absence of a signature of the attesting authority on the photograph as such would be defects which, even if permitted to be cured, can be so cured only if the application is returned to the applicant and he is permitted to take it back to his office and get it cured suitably. Such a procedure would bring about uncertain consequences and obviously this Court would be reluctant in requiring the Commission to adopt a procedure which is not only inconsistent with the norms laid down in that behalf in Ext.P1 but would in turn, generate further complications. 8. In the circumstances, I do not find any error in the W.P.(C).20266/09 6 stand taken by the Commission. No doubt cases like the present one where the petitioners have actually passed the examination (results were disclosed to this Court pursuant to an interim order passed by this Court) might generate sympathy. But this Court would interfere with orders, in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, only if, on judicial review, the action taken by a body like the Commission suffers from an error or is otherwise illegal or unconstitutional. 9. I do not find my way to interfere with the action taken by the Commission. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs