IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 35209 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JIJURAJ M., S/O.K.JANARDHANAN, DOCUMENT WRITER, TRIKARPUR P.O. KASARAGOD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, KASARAGOD. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ====================================== W.P.(C)No. 35209 of 2008 ====================================== Dated this the 27th day of November 2008 JUDGMENT Heard Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Alexander Thomas, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala Public Service Commission. 2. By Ext.P1 notification published in the Kerala Gazette dated 27.3.2008, the Kerala Public Service Commission, hereinafter referred to as `Commission' for short, invited applications from eligible persons for appointment to the post of Live Stock Inspector Grade II. Appointment to the post of Live Stock Inspector Grade II is made from four sources including from the open market. In respect of candidates in the open market, the category number to be shown in the application was 135/2008. The petitioner, an open market candidate submitted his application within time. However, in the application form he had shown the category number of the post as Category No. 132/2009. Ext.P1 notification discloses that category No.132/2008 is category of post against which Cattle Improvement Assistant alone can apply. The Commission scrutinised the petitioner's application, rejected it and informed the petitioner of the same in Ext.P2 letter dated 24.9.2008. In this writ petition the petitioner challenges Ext.P2. The petitioner also W.P.(C)No.35209/2008 2 seeks a declaration that he is entitled to be treated as an applicant who had applied for the post covered by Category No.135/2008. 3. Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in T.Jayakumar v A.Gopu and another [2008(9) SCC 403] contends that as the petitioner has moved the Commission in Exts.P3 and P4 representations, the Commission has to exercise its appellate power and consider whether the petitioner can be treated as having submitted a valid application. In T.Jayakumar v A.Gopu and another (supra) the appointment was not one made by the Commission. The candidate concerned had submitted two applications, the first was invalid for want of signature and the second was submitted beyond time. The High Court held that the second application which was otherwise valid should have been treated as part and parcel of the first application, that was invalid. The opinion of the High Court was reversed by the Supreme Court. While reversing the High Court, the Apex court observed that by directing that the second application should be treated as part and parcel of the first application, the High Court substituted its own view in the place of the view taken by the appointing authority. In that context, it was observed that such an approach W.P.(C)No.35209/2008 3 might have been permissible for an appellate authority, provided there was one, but was plainly beyond the scope of judicial review. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the instant case, the petitioner's application was rejected by the District Officer and therefore the Commission can exercise appellate powers to over rule the decision of the District Officer and take its own decision in the matter. 4. The Commission receives hundreds of thousand applications for various categories of posts. Appointment to the post of Live Stock Inspector Grade II is made from four different sources. The Commission can only go by the details furnished by the applicant in the application and cannot make a roving enquiry to find out whether they fall under any other category, entertain the applications and permit them to appear for the written test or interview and include them in the ranked list. In the instant case the petitioner is an open market candidate and the category of post against which he can apply Category No.135/2008. Instead in the petitioner's application, the category number was shown 132/2008. On the materials furnished by the petitioner in his application, the District Officer of the Commission found that he is not a Cattle Improvement Assistant and was therefore ineligible to apply against that category of post. The Commission had no W.P.(C)No.35209/2008 4 duty to conduct a roving enquiry and ascertain whether the petitioner falls in any of the other three categories and also to ascertain whether he is an open market candidate. The Commission does not have the duty to make any such enquiry. It would also be impossible for the Commission to discharge its functions, if the Commission were to spent its time and resources in making such enquiries. An applicant who does not satisfy the requirements of the notification, and does not furnish correct information in the application and does not take care to see that the application is in order, cannot blame the Kerala Public Service Commission, if his application is rejected. The Commission has been uniformly adopting the stand that applications which do not fulfil the stipulations in the notification inviting applications are liable to be rejected. If such request from the petitioner is entertained, it will also lead to total disruption in the working of the Commission, thereby resulting in unnecessary delay in completion of the selection process. There would also be no end to requests for correction of applications. The petitioner had a duty to take care and duty to ensure that he has submitted an application in tune with the stipulations in the notification. The petitioner alone is to be blamed for the lapses on his part. As the Commission had no duty to find out whether the petitioner was W.P.(C)No.35209/2008 5 an open market candidate, the stand taken by the respondents cannot be faulted. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE css/