IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 21ST MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 37192 of 2007(C) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------------- SUMESH N.S., NIVARTHIL, ANDHAKARANAZHY P.O., CHERTHALA. BY ADV. MR.J.OM PRAKASH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, P.S.C., PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. MR.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC FOR R.1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.37192/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DT. NIL BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P2:- COPY OF THE CHALAN SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DT. 11.7.07. P3:- COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE PETITIONER DT. 26.9.07. P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER FOR GOVERNMENT EXAMINATION, TRIVANDRUM DT. 12.11.07. P5:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DT. 21.11.07. P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTED. 19.12.07 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ====================================== W.P.(C)No.37192 of 2007 ====================================== Dated this the 10th day of February 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner, an applicant for appointment to the post of Reserve Driver in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation' for short, has filed this Writ Petition aggrieved by the rejection of his application by the Kerala Public Service Commission. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- 2. By a notification dated 31.12.2004 published in the official gazette, the Kerala Public Service Commission, hereinafter referred to as 'Commission' for short, invited applications from eligible persons for appointment by direct recruitment to the post of Reserve Driver in the Corporation. The petitioner submitted his application on 11.1.2005 within the prescribed time limit. In the application, he had entered his date of birth as 7.7.1979 in the place of 4.5.1980, the date of birth entered in the SSLC Book. The petitioner appeared in the written test and thereafter was included in the short list published on 11.7.2006. A practical test was held sometime in February/March 2007. It was then noticed that the date of birth given by the petitioner in the application (7.7.1979) is at variance with the date of birth in his SSLC Book (4.5.1980). The petitioner thereupon prayed for and the Commission granted him time to correct the entry regarding the W.P.(C) No.37192/2007 2 date of birth in the SSLC Book. The Commission also included the petitioner's name provisionally in the ranked list that was published on 14.6.2007. 3. The petitioner thereafter applied to the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Kerala under Chapter VI of the Kerala Education Rules for correction of the date of birth in the school records and in the SSLC Book. The application was submitted on 11.7.2007. It appears that the Commissioner for Government Examinations returned the application, since it was not accompanied by a covering letter of the Headmaster of the school where the petitioner had undergone his studies. The application was resubmitted on 19.9.2007. While matters stood thus, the Commission issued a show cause notice dated 19.9.2007 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why his application should not be rejected. The petitioner submitted Ext.P3 reply pointing out that he has already moved the Commissioner for Government Examinations to correct the date of birth in the SSLC Book, that it was returned on a technical ground, that it was re-presented after curing the defect and that he may be granted an opportunity to submit the SSLC Book after the entry regarding date of birth is corrected. By Ext.P4 order dated 12.11.2007, the Joint Commissioner for Government Examinations granted the petitioner's request and accorded sanction to correct his date of W.P.(C) No.37192/2007 3 birth in the school records and in the SSLC Book from 4.5.1980 to 7.7.1979. The petitioner thereafter got the SSLC Book corrected and submitted it along with Ext.P5 letter dated 21.11.2007 to the Secretary of the Commission. This Writ Petition was thereafter filed on 14.12.2007 apprehending that the Commission might reject his application, seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to include his name in the ranked list of candidates selected for appointment as Reserve Driver in the Corporation. This Writ Petition was admitted and notice ordered to the respondents on 17.12.2007. Two days thereafter, the Commission issued Ext.P6 letter dated 19.12.2007 informing the petitioner that his name stands deleted from the ranked list since he did not produce the corrected SSLC book within the time granted by the Commission. The Writ Petition was thereupon amended incorporating a challenge to Ext.P6. 4. The petitioner contends that he could not produce the corrected SSLC Book on or before 29.9.2007 in view of the time taken by the Commissioner for Government Examinations to permit such correction and that he cannot be visited with the consequences of the delay on the part of the Commissioner for Government Examinations in permitting correction of the date of birth in the school records and in the SSLC Book. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as the petitioner's name W.P.(C) No.37192/2007 4 has already been included in the rank list published on 14.6.2007, no one else would be prejudiced if such inclusion is regularised. The Commission has filed a counter affidavit contending inter alia that the Commission was justified in rejecting the petitioner's application since he did not submit the corrected SSLC Book within the time granted by the Commission. The Commission contends that taking a lenient view the petitioner's name was provisionally included in the ranked list published on 14.6.2007 and that the petitioner who was aware of his correct date of birth and the mistaken entry in the SSLC Book, ought to have taken steps to rectify the mistake in the SSLC Book immediately after he applied for appointment to the post early in 2005. The Commission contends that the petitioner cannot take advantage of his own fault and that they cannot wait indefinitely for candidates to rectify the defects in their certificates since it would delay finalisation of the selection process. 5. I have heard Sri.J.Omprakash, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Alexander Thomas, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Commission. The Commission has rejected the petitioner's application on the short ground that he did not submit the corrected SSLC Book within the time granted by the Commission. The petitioner was admittedly short listed and his name was also provisionally included in the ranked list W.P.(C) No.37192/2007 5 published on 14.6.2007. The Commission had also granted time to the petitioner till 29.9.2007 to produce the corrected SSLC Book. The corrected SSLC Book was admittedly produced towards the end of November 2007 along with Ext.P5 representation. Ext.P4 proves that correction of the petitioner's date of birth in the school records and in the SSLC book was permitted by the Joint Commissioner for Government Examinations only on 12.11.2007. In the meanwhile, the Commission issued show cause notice dated 19.9.2007 and also deleted the petitioner's name from the ranked list on 25.10.2007. However, he was informed of the rejection of his application and the deletion of his name from the ranked list only on 19.12.2007. The contention of the petitioner is that as his name has already been included in the ranked list, no prejudice would be caused to anyone by regularising his inclusion in the rank list. The Commission justifies its action on the ground that they had granted the petitioner adequate time to correct the mistake in the SSLC Book and that they had even without the petitioner asking for it, included his name provisionally in the ranked list. 6. Ordinarily, I would not have interfered with the discretion exercised by the Commission. However, I notice that the petitioner's name was included in the ranked list and his application was rejected after the ranked list was finalised and W.P.(C) No.37192/2007 6 published. The ranked list in the case on hand was published on 14.6.2007. The show cause notice was issued on 19.9.2007 and the petitioner's name was deleted from the ranked list on 25.10.2007. However, within one month thereafter the petitioner produced the corrected SSLC Book. In the peculiar facts of this case, as the name of the petitioner had already been included in the rank list, I am persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that regularisation of the inclusion of the petitioner's name in the ranked list based on the corrected SSLC Book would not cause any serious prejudice to the candidates included in the ranked list or to any other applicant, especially for the reason that the petitioner had come out successful in the written test and in the practical test. In my opinion, the rights of the candidates included in the rank list who have already been advised, can be safe guarded by directing the Commission not to disturb the advices already made and by further directing that the petitioner will be entitled to be advised only against the next arising vacancies based on the turn available to the category to which he belongs, whether it be open category or of communities entitled for reservation. In the result, I quash Ext.P6 and the deletion of the petitioner's name from the ranked list of Reserve Drivers published on 14.6.2007. The Commission is directed to restore W.P.(C) No.37192/2007 7 the name of the petitioner at the appropriate place in the ranked list published on 14.6.2007. The Commission shall consider the petitioner for advice against the vacancies arising from 11.2.2009 onwards without disturbing the advices already made, if his turn arises. It is also clarified that the petitioner will have no right to claim the benefit of first effective advice based on his ranking in the ranked list and notwithstanding his position in the ranked list, he will be entitled to claim seniority only from the date on which he is advised pursuant to the directions issued in this judgment. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE css/