Case: K.C. Ashok  Vs. Kerala Public Service Commission

is made out and accordingly the submission of learned counsel is devoid of any substance. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants, next submitted that as in these appeals one advertisement was issued for making selection in 14 districts and though the candidates had applied in more than one district but they could appear only in one district in view of the fact that test was conducted in all the districts on one day, rule restricting filing of application for one district incorporated in Note-2 of the notification should be read down in its application to the cases like the appellants. The submission has been made only to be rejected as in the present case we have already held that the aforesaid restriction contained in Note-2 is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, therefore, the question of reading down the same does not arise. Reference in this connection may made to the decision of the Court in the case of Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. and others v. Secretary, Revenue Department, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and others, 1999(4) SCC 458, in which case it was submitted that Article 285 of the Constitution was intended to protect public revenue, the shares of appellant Companies, in those appeals, being fully owned by the Central Government, their funds were public revenue. As such it was found not necessary to read down the provisions of Sections 2(j) and 12 of Andhra Pradesh Non-Agricultural Lands Assessment Act, 1963 (14 of 1963) to exclude therefrom all but private owners and lessees of land. This Court while rejecting the submission observed thus : "The question of reading down comes in if it is found that these provisions are ultra vires as they stand. We have held that these provisions are not ultra vires because Article 285 does not apply when the property that is to be taxed is not of the Union of India but of a distinct and separate legal entity. Each of the appellants being companies registered under the Companies Act, they are entities other than the Union of India. The question of reading down does not, therefore, arise." 16. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that out of 1270 candidates 436 persons including appellants in these appeals applied for more than one district as they were misled by the short notification dated 11.4.1996 and were not aware of the penal provisions contained in Note-(2) of gazette notification dated 2.4.1996. In this regard, it may be stated that in the concluding portion of the short notification dated 11.4.1996 it was specifically mentioned that for more details a candidate was required to refer to concerned notification meaning thereby the aforesaid notification dated 2.4.1996. Moreover it has been further stated in the short notification that model application form has been appended in the gazette notification again meaning thereby notification dated 2.4.1996. In these cases some of the appellants in their application form, in reply to column 8(b), which required a candidate to state whether he had applied in more than one district, had stated `No and others `Yes, though all of them had applied in more than one district. In view of language in the short notification a candidate was obliged under law to look into the gazette notification dated 2.4.1996, more so when in the application form which was duly filled up by the appellants, it was specifically enumerated that "candidates should read the relevant gazette notification inviting applications before filling up the application form". Thus we find no substance in this submission as well. 17. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that decision of this Court in the case of O.N. Omana v. Kerala Public Service Commisison and others, S.L.P. (Civil) No. 12562 of 1999, is quite distinguishable as in that case though there was one notification inviting applications for appointment in several districts and similar restriction was there and in contravention of the same application was filed for appointment in more than one district, but written test was conducted in different districts on different dates and not on one date and the candidates appeared in more than one district. In our view, though in the present case written test was conducted in all the 14 districts on one day but that cannot be a ground for making any distinction. Applications of some of the appellants have been rejected on the ground that though they had applied for appointment in more than one district but made a false declaration that they had applied in one district only whereas in other cases they did apply in more than one district and stated in the application that they had so applied. According to the gazette notification both the grounds were independently sufficient for rejection of candidature of a candidate. It appears that the Commisison has been liberal in simply rejecting their candidature for the time being and had not debarred them from applying for any public post either for a specified period or permanently inasmuch as for making a false declaration though the appellant were liable to be criminally prosecuted but no such steps have been taken against them. 18. Learned counsel for the appellants lastly submitted that as number of appellants had crossed the upper age limit and number of vacancies are available, without disturbing already selected candidates, the appellants can be considered for selection on the basis of their placement in the merit list. In our view seeing the conduct of appellants in making false declaration and applying in more than on district in contravention of gazette notification, it is not possible to accede to their prayer even on equitable grounds. 19. For the foregoing reasons we are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by a two-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Omana and the High Court was quite justified in upholding order of rejection of candidature of the appellants by the Commission. 20. Accordingly the appeals are dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]16. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that out of 1270 candidates 436 persons including appellants in these appeals applied for more than one district as they were misled by the short notification dated 11.4.1996 and were not aware of the penal provisions contained in Note-(2) of gazette notification dated 2.4.1996. In this regard, it may be stated that in the concluding portion of the short notification dated 11.4.1996 it was specifically mentioned that for more details a candidate was required to refer to concerned notification meaning thereby the aforesaid notification dated 2.4.1996. Moreover it has been further stated in the short notification that model application form has been appended in the gazette notification again meaning thereby notification dated 2.4.1996. In these cases some of the appellants in their application form, in reply to column 8(b), which required a candidate to state whether he had applied in more than one district, had stated `No and others `Yes, though all of them had applied in more than one district. In view of language in the short notification a candidate was obliged under law to look into the gazette notification dated 2.4.1996, more so when in the application form which was duly filled up by the appellants, it was specifically enumerated that "candidates should read the relevant gazette notification inviting applications before filling up the application form". Thus we find no substance in this submission as well.Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that decision of this Court in the case of O.N. Omana v. Kerala Public Service Commisison and others, S.L.P. (Civil) No. 12562 of 1999, is quite distinguishable as in that case though there was one notification inviting applications for appointment in several districts and similar restriction was there and in contravention of the same application was filed for appointment in more than one district, but written test was conducted in different districts on different dates and not on one date and the candidates appeared in more than one district. In our view, though in the present case written test was conducted in all the 14 districts on one day but that cannot be a ground for making any distinction. Applications of some of the appellants have been rejected on the ground that though they had applied for appointment in more than one district but made a false declaration that they had applied in one district only whereas in other cases they did apply in more than one district and stated in the application that they had so applied. According to the gazette notification both the grounds were independently sufficient for rejection of candidature of a candidate. It appears that the Commisison has been liberal in simply rejecting their candidature for the time being and had not debarred them from applying for any public post either for a specified period or permanently inasmuch as for making a false declaration though the appellant were liable to be criminally prosecuted but no such steps have been taken against them.Learned counsel for the appellants lastly submitted that as number of appellants had crossed the upper age limit and number of vacancies are available, without disturbing already selected candidates, the appellants can be considered for selection on the basis of their placement in the merit list.In our view seeing the conduct of appellants in making false declaration and applying in more than on district in contravention of gazette notification, it is not possible to accede to their prayer even on equitable grounds.