IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 2ND ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 28048 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- KHADEEJA.K., 30 YEARS, W/O.BASHEER, KAVUNGAL HOUSE, MAKKARAPARAMBA PO., MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM PALACE PO. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4. 2. THE SECRETARY, KPSC, PATTOM PALACE PO., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC FOR PSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 28048 OF 2008 (L) ==================== Dated this the 24th day of September, 2008 J U D G M E N T The 1st respondent had notified vacancies including that of Lecturer in Arabic and the applications were to be submitted ON LINE. Petitioner submits that she had submitted the application from a Computer Centre. However, she received Ext.P4, a hall ticket for the written examination scheduled to 27/9/2008 for the post of Lecturer in Tamil. It is stated that on receipt of Ext.P4, petitioner submitted Ext.P5 to the 2nd respondent requesting to be permitted to appear for the written examination for Lecturer in Arabic and as it did not yield any result, this writ petition has been filed. The prayer made is to direct the respondents to issue hall ticket to the petitioner for her admission to the written examination for the post of Lecturer in Arabic under the Kerala Collegiate Education Department. 2. In the writ petition itself, in para 8, petitioner states that she had been informed that she had wrongly indicated the category code and that this mistake on her part would have led to the issue of the hall ticket for the written examination for Lecturer Tamil. 3. On instructions, standing counsel for the respondents would WPC 28048/08 :2 : also point out that in the application submitted, the petitioner had indicated a category number and that the Public Service Commission processed the application and as the category indicated by the petitioner pertained to Lecturer in Tamil, the hall ticket was also issued for that discipline. 4. Evidently, it was on account of the wrong category indicated by the petitioner in the application form, PSC had issued Ext.P4. If that be the position, the PSC cannot be faulted for having issued the hall ticket. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Rule 15A of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure and contend for the position that even if Ext.P4 was on account of the mistake committed by the candidate, still such mistake could be corrected. A reading of Rule 15A, in my view, does not lend support to the position canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This rule only enables the correction of a mistake committed by the PSC and it does not enable correction of the mistake committed by a candidate in the application submitted. 5. The standing counsel also made available before me Division Bench judgments of this Court in Binimil K.G. v. K.P.S.C. (1997(2) KLJ 477) and Prasanth M. v. K.P.S.C. and others in WA No.2506/07. While WPC 28048/08 :3 : the first one is related to rejection of an application received by the PSC belatedly, the second one relates to a case where an application was rejected by the PSC for the reason that the entry regarding the District in respect of which the post was applied for was erroneous. Though the first one may not, on facts, apply to the facts pleaded in this writ petition, the second judgment certainly covers the issue in favour of the PSC. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp