IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2010 / 31ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 11891 of 2009(F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- ANITHA KUMARI.K., "GOPI SADANAM", KARUMADI P.O., AMBALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA - 688 564. BY ADV. SRI.JOSHI N.THOMAS. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,S.C,K.P.S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.11891/2009-F: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE POSSIBILITY LIST NO. PL.05/2008/EKM CAT.NO.168/06 169/06 DTD. 20/11/2008 ISSUED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 12/03/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.1. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE LETTER UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DTD. 12/03/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.1. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 04/04/09 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.1. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. E7(2) 1040/08 DTD. 28/03/2009 ISSUED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.DRI (1) 51513/06/GW/7 DT. 30/06/2009 ISSUED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.11891 of 2009 (F) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 22nd day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T In pursuance to the notification published by the Public Service Commission for appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk in various Departments in Ernakulam District the petitioner submitted her application. Written test was held on 03/11/2007, and it appears that the petitioner’s name was included in the probability list. The petitioner was residing in Delhi with her husband and according to the petitioner, she did not know about the certificate verification. It is stated that, finally, when she came to know that the ranked list was being finalized without giving her an opportunity to produce the certificates, the petitioner made representations to the PSC. The representation was rejected by Ext.P5 and therefore, this writ petition has been filed. 2. At the stage of admission, this Court passed order dated 08/04/2009, directing the PSC to provisionally verify the certificates and take appropriate steps and thereafter intimate the petitioner WP(C) No.11891/2009 -2- about the steps taken. Certificates were verified and the PSC issued Ext.P6 order rejecting her claim. In Ext.P6, it is stated thus :- “The probability list for the post of LDC(V) in Ernakulam District was published on 20/11/2008. It was specified in the list that the verification of documents for the candidates included in the list would be conducted from 1-5th of December, 2008. This was also communicated through the official website of the Kerala Public Service Commission and also through Print media. You were supposed to appear for verification on 03/12/2008. Another chance was also given on 11-12 & 12-12 for those who could not appear on this date. Individual memo was also served to those candidates on 05/12/2008. A press release was also given in all major dailies to this effect. A last chance was given on 27/12/2008 to all candidates who missed the chance. The Ranked list for the post of LDC(V) in Ernakulam District came into force w.e.f. 01/01/2009. Your petition dated 12/03/2009 reached the office on 24/03/2009. In your petition, it is stated that you are living in New Delhi and could not receive the letter from Public Service Commission through post office. The letter intimating the certificate verification was posted from the PSC Office to the address given in your application. You have not intimated the address change to the Public Service Commission. So you cannot find fault with the PSC for not receiving the letter. The practice followed by the Public Service Commission with regard to the certificate verification is that, no chance shall be given to the candidates after the publication of the Ranked List.” It is in these circumstances, this writ petition has been filed. 3. The stand taken by the PSC is that in terms of the WP(C) No.11891/2009 -3- notification, the candidate ought to have appeared for certificate verification. It is stated that if the candidate had appeared any time before the finalization of the ranked list, the PSC would have verified the certificates. 4. In this case, admittedly, despite repeated public notices given by the PSC, the petitioner did not appear for certificate verification any time before 01/01/2009, when the ranked list was published. If that be the case, this Court will not be justified in finding fault with the PSC for excluding the petitioner from consideration or for not including her in the ranked list. It is seen that in almost similar circumstances, when WP(C) No.9509/2009 was filed by a candidate, that writ petition was dismissed by judgment dated 06/11/2009. The said judgment was also confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court by dismissing W.A.No.2827/2009 filed by the candidate. For the aforesaid reasons, I cannot find fault with the PSC in not considering the case of the petitioner. Therefore the writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg