IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 20TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3261 of 2011(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SAHTEESAN.K.N, KUTTADATH HOUSE, THALAYAZHAM.P.O., ULLALA, VAIKOM,KOTTAYAM-686607. 2. SUDHEESH CHANDRABABU.P., VALIYAPARAMBICHIRA, THOTTAKAM.P.O., VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM-686145. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERTICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004. 2. DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM-686001. ADV.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC FOR PSC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 3261 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 9th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioners participated in the selection process for the post of Driver Grade II in Kottayam District pursuant to the notification inviting applications by the PSC. They have written the written test and attended the practical test. Now they have been told that their applications have been invalidated since they have quoted the category number wrongly. According to the petitioners, after having allowed the petitioners to participate in the selection process, the respondents cannot now invalidate the applications on the ground of wrong quoting of the category number in the applications. The petitioners, therefore, seek the following reliefs: “i) to issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P4 memo as unjust, illegal and unsustainable. ii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to cancel Ext.P4 and to include the petitioners in Ext.P5 ranked list in the appropriate place; iii) to declare that the exclusion of the petitioners in the ranked list is illegal, unjust arbitrary and ultra vires; iv) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to include the petitioners to Ext.P5 untrammeled by the stand taken in Ext.P4.” 2. The learned standing counsel for the PSC submits that this question is covered against the petitioners on all points, by the Division Bench decision of this Court in Neena v. Public Service w.p.c.3261/11 2 Commission [2010 (1) KLT 258)] and the judgment in W.A.No.1236/ 2010. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. In W.A.No.1236/2010, the Division Bench of this Court has held as follows: 'Appellant was an aspirant to the post of Clerk/Cashier in the District Co-operative Bank, Alappuzha. She submitted an application in response to the notification issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission in this regard. It is beyond controversy that appointments were proposed to be made under two categories viz. (a) General and (b), 50% quota available by transfer. 2. It is admitted by the appellant that while submitting her application she had indicated Code No.21/206 as the category applicable in her case, which pertains to 'Service Quota'. In fact she ought to have indicated Code No.20 which applied to General Quota. According to the appellant, she had noticed the above mistake on the next day itself and made a request to the District Officer of the Commission. Anyhow, the fact remains that she was allowed to participate in the written examination. But surprisingly when the short list was published, her name was not included therein, on the ground that her application had been rejected since it was found to be defective. It is in the above circumstances that the appellant filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge praying for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to treat her application as valid and to include her name in the short list. She further prayed for a declaration that the mistake committed by her in the application was so trivial that it could not have been treated as fatal to her eligibility to be considered for selection and appointment to the post. 3. The learned Single Judge repelled the contentions raised by the appellant and dismissed the writ petition relying on a decision of this Court in Neena v. Public Service Commission (2010 (1) KLT 258). In this decision it was noticed by the learned Single Judge that in T. Jayakumar v. A.Gopu and another {(2008) 9 SCC 403}, it has been held that there cannot be any estoppal against the Commission even if the candidate is allowed to participate in the examination as though the application submitted by him/her was not defective. The above decision was followed by another learned Single Judge in WP(C) 34228/2009 which, in turn, was affirmed by a Division Bench in W.A.348/2010 . The Division Bench observed thus:- “The short point that arises for decision in this case is whether the decision of the PSC impugned is one w.p.c.3261/11 3 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.” We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain this writ appeal. It is therefore dismissed in limine.' 5. I am satisfied that the said judgment covers the issue involved in this writ petition also against the petitioners on all points. Accordingly, following that judgment, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge