IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 32441 of 2008(K) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------------- BAGYANATHAN.C.G., S/O.P.S.GOGULAN, AGED 40, GOKULALAYAM KUMBALAM, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH SRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 004. ADV. SRI. ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, KPSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.N.Ravindran, J. ===================== W.P(C).No.32441 of 2008 ===================== Dated this the 4th day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is presently working as Upper Division Clerk in the Irrigation Department. He is aggrieved by the rejection of his application for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Irrigation Department. 2. By a notification published in the Kerala Gazette Extraordinary dated 12.11.2007, the Kerala Public Service Commission, hereinafter referred to as the “Commission” for short, invited applications from departmental hands in the Irrigation Department/Public Works Department for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil). The Category Number of the post for departmental candidates belonging to the Public Works Department was 399/07 while the Category Number of the post for departmental hands belonging to the Irrigation Department was 400/07. The applications were to be submitted online. The petitioner submitted his application within the prescribed time. However, instead of Category No.400/07 in his application Category No.399/07 was given. His application was rejected by the Commission by Ext.P3 letter dated 18.9.2008 on the short ground that he is not a departmental hand in the Public Works Department. Ext.P3 is under challenge in this Writ Petition wherein the petitioner prays that the WP(C) 32441/08 -: 2 :- Commission may be directed to permit him to appear for the examination scheduled to be held on 11.11.2008. 3. I have heard Sri.Sherry J.Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Alexander Thomas, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Commission. While the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that as the petitioner's entitlement and eligibility to apply for the post in question is not disputed and as the appointment is to the post of Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation Department, the mistake in the category number is not a crucial mistake and the Commission ought to have condoned the lapse and permitted him to correct the mistake. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the Commission contends relying on the decision of this Court in W.P.(C) No.2848 of 2006 which was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2081 of 2008 that mistakes in online application cannot be permitted to be corrected. 4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. In the instant case, Ext.P2 discloses that the petitioner had given the wrong Category Number, namely, No.399/07 which is the Category Number of the post of Assistant Engineer for departmental candidates belonging to the Public Works Department. The petitioner, who belongs to the Irrigation Department did not give the correct Category Number in his application. On verification of the application, the Commission found that he is not a WP(C) 32441/08 -: 3 :- departmental candidate of the Public Works Department. The application was accordingly dismissed. The Commission receives hundreds of thousands of applications every year. The Commission can verify whether the petitioner is a departmental candidate of the Public Works Department only with reference to the details furnished by him in the application. The Commission cannot conduct a roving enquiry to ascertain whether the petitioner belongs to the Irrigation Department and was entitled to apply as an employee of that department. The responsibility of filling up the application correctly is on the applicant. The Commission was therefore perfectly justified in rejecting the petitioner's application on the ground that he is not a departmental candidate of the Public Works Department. The mistake committed by the petitioner cannot also be termed as insignificant or trivial. The petitioner cannot therefore successfully challenge Ext.P3. The Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 6/11