IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2009 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 846 of 2009(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- DR. N. JYOTHI VIJAYAKUMAR, W/O. VINOD VENU M. AGED 28 YEARS, MARAVATTIKKAL HOUSE, KANNAPURAM, CHETTUPUZHA P.O., THRISSUR 680 621. BY ADVS.MR.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA MR.N.A.SHAFEEK RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE, THRISSUR. BY ADV. MR.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.846/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE CALL LETTER DT. 15.12.07. P2:- COPY OF THE CASTE CERTIFICATE DT. 10.1.08 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, ARANATTUKARA. P3:- COPY OF THE PERFORMA FILLED AT THE TIME OF INTERVIEW DT. 16.1.08. P4:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 5.4.08 SENT TO 2ND RESPONDENT. P5:- COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE TSS P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.846 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated 27th May, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner who belongs to a backward class community submitted an on line application for appointment to the post of Assistant Surgeon in the Health Services Department. In the on line application she did not claim reservation and claimed that she is applying as an open category candidate. Later, at the time of interview, she claimed the benefit of reservation as a member of a backward community. The Kerala Public Service Commission did not accept the said claim. The petitioner was however selected and included in the ranked list as an open category candidate. In this writ petition, the petitioner claims the benefit of reservation. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit. Relying on the decisions of this Court and Apex Court the respondents contend that claims made subsequent to the submission of applications can under no circumstance be entertained. 2. It is the admitted case of the parties that the petitioner did not claim the benefit of reservation when she applied for appointment to the post. In Condition No.18 of the general conditions forming part of the notification it is stated that submissions made WP(C).No.846/2009 2 subsequent to the application will not be entertained and that proof in respect of claims which have not been made in the application also will not be considered. In the application, the petitioner did not claim the benefit of reservation. Therefore, her application was treated as an application by an open category candidate. The petitioner who did not claim reservation when she applied for the post cannot at the stage of interview claim that as a member of a backward community she is entitled to the benefit of reservation. The Commission was therefore right in taking the view that the petitioner can be treated only as an open category candidate. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge TKS