IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2011 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 6475 of 2010(H) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. SANDEEP.P.K., S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY P.K., AGED 32 YEARS, SHARAN VILLA, 28/730 B, POST CHEVAYUR, KOZHIKODE-673 017. 2. JITHESH.A.M., S/O.NARAYANAN, AGED 32 YEARS, ARIKOTTU MEETHAL HOUSE, CHEVAYUR POST, KOZHIKODE-673 017. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISSH SMT.M.MANJU RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC FOR KPSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts 2/- -2- WP(C)NO.6475/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE HALL TICKET ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. P2 COPY OF THE HALL TICKET ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. P3 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16/11/2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. P4 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16/11/2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.6475 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioners applied for the post of Driver Grade-II in various departments for direct recruitment. Simultaneously the Kerala Public Service Commission had invited applications for by-transfer appointment as well. The category code for the two selections were different. The petitioners quoted wrong category code in their applications. After the petitioners participated in the written test they were informed that their applications were rejected for wrong quoting of the category code in the applications. Challenging the same, the petitioners have filed this writ petition. 2. This court has, while admitting the writ petition, permitted the petitioners to appear in the practical test and interview. The petitioners seek declaration of their results. I have decided to hear the Writ Petition itself by consent of the parties. I have heard the learned counsel for the W.P.(C)No.6475 of 2010 -2- petitioners as also the learned standing counsel for the P.S.C. 3. The learned standing counsel for the P.S.C relies on several decisions of this court including that of a Division Bench in W.A.No.348/2010, holding that the quoting of wrong category code in the application is sufficient reason for the P.S.C to reject the application. The counsel for the petitioners tries to distinguish the said judgment on the contention that after having made a preliminary screening and allowed the petitioners to participate in the written test the petitioners cannot be deprived of the benefits of the written test and therefore the applications cannot be rejected thereafter. According to the petitioners, the decisions relied on are, therefore not identical to the petitioners' case. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. In W.A. No.348/2010 a Division Bench of this court has held as follows: “The appellant was an applicant for the post of Driver Grade II, in various departments, in Kozhikode District. The category number given to the said post, in the notification W.P.(C)No.6475 of 2010 -3- issued by the Public Service Commission (for short, 'PSC') was 32/07. But, in the application, the appellant wrongly entered the category number as 33/07. It appears, in the envelope containing the application, he mentioned the correct category number. Apparently, for that reason, he was called for the test. Later, on realizing the defect in the application, the PSC rejected it. The said decision was communicated to the appellant, by Ext.P3. Challenging Ext.P3 and seeking consequential reliefs, the Writ Petition was filed. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence, this Writ Appeal. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant. He extensively canvassed the grounds, which were unsuccessfully raised before the learned Single Judge. The short point that arises for decision in this case is, whether the decision of the PSC impugned is, one within jurisdiction. We have no doubt in our mind that if the application does not mention the correct category number, it is a defective application. If the PSC decides to reject a defective application, the same cannot be said to be ultra vires or unauthorised. If the decision of the PSC is one within jurisdiction, this Court cannot probe into the matter any further. Therefore,we find no reason to interfere with the decision of the learned Singe Judge. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. In the decision of this court in Neena v. P.S.C. [2010 (1) KLT 258], this court has held that even after the written test the P.S.C can reject the application on the ground of wrong quoting of the category code in the application. Following the above decisions, I dismiss the writ petition. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/