IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2010 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 9885 of 2010(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- SHEEJA P., S.N.BHAVAN, MUTHUKULAM SOUTH P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. MR.D.SOMASUNDARAM RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA. 3. DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK ALAPPUZHA REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. R1 & R2 BY ADV.MR. ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, KPSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 9885 OF 2010 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th March, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the non- inclusion of her name in the select list published by the Public Service Commission for the reason that an application submitted by her for selection and appointment to the post as Clerk/Cashier in the District Co-operative Bank, Alappuzha had been rejected. 2. The petitioner was an applicant for selection to the post of Clerk/Cashier in the District Co-operative Bank, Alappuzha conducted by the Public Service Commission. By mistake the petitioner wrote her code number as 21/06 instead of Code No: 20/2006. Code No: 21/2006 was assigned to the employees of Primary Societies who had a quota of 50% of the vacancies reserved for them. Code No: 20/2006 was provided for general candidates. According to the petitioner on the very next day she had requested for rectification of the mistake. Thereafter, she was called for a written test in which she performed well. However, when the candidates were short listed, her name was not included therein. On enquiry she learnt that her application had been rejected. WPC 9885/2010 2 3. According to the petitioner, the mistake in entering the code number was a minor mistake which should not have resulted in the rejection of her application. Therefore, she challenges the action of the Public Service Commission in this writ petition. 4. Standing counsel for the PSC, Mr. Alexander Thomas relies on two decisions of this Court to contend that the action of the PSC was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. In Neena v. Public Service Commission {2010(1)KLT 258}, considering a similar contention this Court has observed as follows:- “12. Therefore, the question is whether the rejection of the application for wrongly recording the category number is justified or not. It is of importance to notice that category number is vital for the validity of the application. There is no specific provision for allowing a candidate to correct an entry in the category code. Even though the application is for the same post, here in H.S.A.(English), if the applications of such candidates are accepted, then that will be violative of the instructions issued to the candidates. Category number 83 was for direct recruitment from open market and category number 84 was for by transfer. In the light of the view taken by the Division Bench in Binimil's case {(1997(1)KLT SN 66(C.No:89) = 1997(2) KLJ 477), a WPC 9885/2010 3 strict view on the part of the Commission cannot be said to be illegal. Their Lordships were of the view that laxity in one case will leave open the flood gate of requests to condone such irregularities or omissions. And the Commission with its heavy workload must strictly adhere to the norms set by it. I respectfully follow the same. As held by the Apex Court in T.Jayakumar's case {(2008)9 SCC 403), there cannot be estoppel in these matters and merely because a hall ticket was issued to the petitioner, it cannot be said that the Commission is bound by it and cannot at a later stage reject the application. In the above view of the matter also, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.” In the decision dated 17/12/2009 in W.P(C) 34228/2009 the very same view has been taken by another Learned Single Judge of this Court. In the judgment dated 8/3/2010 in W.A.348/2010, views expressed by the Single Judges of this Court has found acceptance of by the Division Bench also. The Division Bench has concluded as follows, after considering the contentions of the parties:- “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 WPC 9885/2010 4 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.” 5. In view of the above authoritative pronouncement, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned action of the PSC. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 9885/2010 5 K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO: ----------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Dated: