IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2009 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 32583 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ BINU KUMAR.K.R. S/O. LATE RAMAKRISHNAN KOMKOLAM HOUSE, KANNAMBRA.P.O. PALGHAT DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY PATTOM PALACE.P.O., TRIVANDRUM. 2. DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD. 3. PRASAD.M., MADATHIPARAMBU HOUSE KUNNAMBRA.P.O. PALAKKAD DISTRICT. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, PSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 32583 OF 2009 (P) ===================== Dated this the 8th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 is a vacancy notification issued by the PSC inviting applications for the post of Excise Guard in various departments. Petitioner submitted his application against the vacancies in Palakkad District. In the application, he did not claim any weightage based on his achievements in sports. He was included in the shortlist, and finally when Ext.P9 ranked list was published, he was assigned Rank No.134. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was entitled for weightage for his achievements in sports and that although he did not make this claim in the application form, when he produced the certificates at the time of certificate verification, it was declined to be accepted. It is stated that thereupon he submitted Ext.P8 to the District PSC Officer and that no response was forthcoming. 3. It is stated that if his claim for weightage is accepted and marks are awarded on that basis, he will be eligible to be assigned rank No.70. The prayers sought in this writ petition are WPC 32583/09 :2 : to quash Ext.P9 to the extent it places him at Rank No.134 instead of 70 and to direct the respondents to grant four marks on the basis of his achievements in sports and to reassign his ranking on that basis. 4. Ext.P3 is the general conditions of notification which should be complied with by every candidate. Clauses 6 and 18 of Ext.P6 reads as under: 6. Extra marks will be awarded to meritorious Sportsmen who possess the requisite qualifications and are within age, in selections to Class III and Class IV posts as per G.O(Ms) no.21/78/GAD dt 11.1.1978. Accordingly the Sportsmen who are eligible for weightage marks shall state the same in the relevant column in the application and shall produce the relevant certificate when required by the Commission. Candidates shall produce the sports Certificate issued by the authorities mentioned in para 5 of the above Government Order. As regards the Certificate issued by the Amateur Sports Organisation affiliated to any of the National Sports Association mentioned in Appendix VII of the Kerala Service Rules Vol.1 should bear the Countersignature of the Secretary, Kerala Sports Council. Certificates without the Countersignature of the Secretary, Kerala Sports Council will not be considered for awarding weightage marks. 18. Claims made subsequent to the application will not be considered under any circumstances. Proof submitted without proper claim in the application also will not be considered. (emphasis supplied) WPC 32583/09 :3 : Therefore, from this, it is obvious that sportsmen who are eligible for weightage shall state the claim in the relevant column of the application form itself and shall produce relevant certificates when required by the Commission. Clause 18 makes it clear that claims made subsequent to the submission of the application will not be considered under any circumstances. As already stated, petitioner has no case of having stated anything in the application about his achievements in sports justifying his claim for weightage. If that be so, admittedly, there is violation of the general conditions of the notification, in which event, subsequent claim made by the petitioner at the time of certificate verification is not liable to be considered in view of Clause 18. 5. Therefore the PSC was only ensuring compliance with the general conditions of notification, and if so, the PSC cannot be faulted for not accepting the subsequent claim made by the petitioner. This very question has been considered by this Court in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Varghese and others (ILR 1977(1) Kerala 523), Kerala Public Service Commission v. Saroja Nambiar (ILR 1978 (2) Kerala 241) and Binimil K.G. v. K.P.S.C (1997(2) KLJ 477). In these judgments, WPC 32583/09 :4 : this Court has upheld the rejection of the applications which were made in violation of the conditions stipulated in the notification and has held that the PSC is equally bound by the conditions and cannot act in violation thereof. In the light of the aforesaid judgments, I cannot find fault with the PSC in not allowing the belated claim of the petitioner for weightage. 6. However, counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ext.P8 representation made by the petitioner ought to have been treated as an appeal filed in terms of the provisions contained in the Kerala PSC Office Manual. According to him, minor mistakes committed by a candidate at the time of making the application should be permitted to be corrected and that the discretionary power available to the PSC in this behalf should be exercised in accordance with reason and justice. 7. In so far as the claim of the petitioner that Ext.P8 representation made by him to the District PSC Officer should be treated as an appeal, although I have been taken through the entire Office Manual, a copy of which has been made available by the counsel, I have not seen any particular provision in the manual enabling the petitioner to call Ext.P8 as an appeal filed in WPC 32583/09 :5 : terms of the provisions of the said manual. If so, I can only say that Ext.P8 is a representation made which does not have any statutory colour. If so, even if such a representation has not been dealt with as desired by the petitioner, this Court will not be justified in finding fault with the respondents and require them to deal with the same issuing a writ of mandamus. 8. In support of his plea that minor mistakes should have been allowed to be corrected and the discretionary power should be exercised, counsel made reference to the various judgments. The first judgment cited was Manoj Kumar v. Kerala Public Service Commission (1999(2) KLT 534). That was a case where the PSC on its own, permitted the candidates to cure the defect in the applications made, which when challenged, was upheld by this Court on the ground that PSC was only acting fairly. The second judgment relied on in this behalf is Prasad v. Kerala Public Service Commission (2004(1) KLT S.N. 26) where also similar reasoning has been adopted. In this case, the application as such was not defective unlike in the cases dealt with by this Court in the aforesaid two judgments. On the other hand, in this case, petitioner is claiming the benefit of weightage which he did WPC 32583/09 :6 : not claim in the application. Therefore, these judgments were rendered in different factual contexts and cannot be of any assistance to the petitioner. 9. Counsel for the petitioner then relied on the judgment in Satheesh v. Kerala Public Service Commission (2003(1) KLT 976) where the PSC was directed to accept the caste certificate which was subsequently produced by a candidate. A reading of the judgment show that such a direction was issued by this Court taking note of Rule 17C of Part II KS & SSR. The counsel for the petitioner then referred to Sajeev v. Public Service Commision (2008(4) KLT 691) where this Court held that advise of a candidate cannot be cancelled when there was no mistake in the advise as on the date of advise. The other judgment relied on by the counsel was T.Jayakumar v. A.Gopu {(2008) 9 SCC 403}. In that case, although the exclusion of the candidate was upheld by the Apex Court, still exercising the powers of the Apex Court conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution, taking note of the special facts of the case, the Supreme Court granted relief to the petitioner. 10. Counsel for the petitioner also relied on Mohd Yunus WPC 32583/09 :7 : Khan v. U.P.Power Corporation Ltd. {(2009) 1 SCC 80}. The judgment dealt with the correction of date of birth permitted to be done at the fag end of the career of an employee. A reading of the judgment shows that the Apex Court found that it was on account of a mistake committed by the employer that the erroneous date of birth happened to be entered in the service records. It was in that background, relief was granted. The facts of the aforesaid cases as noticed above, would show that these judgments cannot have any application to the facts of this case. 11. Counsel then placed reliance on Rule 15A of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure. Rule 15A provides that the Commission shall have the power to correct any clerical, typographical, arithmetical or other mistake in the ranked lists, advice lists or shortlists etc., or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission at any time either on its own motion or on the application of any of the parties concerned. It was contended that the Commission having been conferred such power, ought to have accepted the testimonials produced by the petitioner at the time he submitted the same for verification. In my understanding, this Rule confers the power on the WPC 32583/09 :8 : Commission to correct mistakes committed by it. In this case, having regard to the fact that the petitioner did not claim weightage, I cannot say that the Commission had committed any mistake justifying exercise of power under Rule 15A. This rule also does not help the petitioner in any manner. 12. Then reference was made to the judgment of this court in WP(C) No.12623 of 2009. A reading of that judgment shows that despite the absence of a declaration, the application was accepted, and later on, it was declined to be entertained. The learned Judge taking note of the facts of the case particularly that under Rule 4(iii) that the Commission shall make arrangements for the conduct of the examination for the candidates whose applications were found to be in order, held that the Commission erred in later rejecting the application. The facts of the case are totally incomparable, and therefore, I am not persuaded to follow this judgment either. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp