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

3. The short facts giving rise to these appeals are that the Commission issued a notification, inviting applications for filling up 348 posts of Junior Health Inspector, Grade-II, in 14 districts of the State of Kerala, published in Kerala Gazette on 2.4.1996 and in Part-I, Note-(2), thereof a restriction was put to the effect that applications should not be sent for more than one district in response to the notification, and if, application contrary to said direction is sent and the candidate is selected, his name would be liable to be struck off from rank list and disciplinary action will be taken. Part-II of the said notification contained, apart from application form in which application was required to be filed, general conditions. In column No. 8(b) of the application form, a candidate was required to state `Yes or `No in answer to the question whether he had applied for the post in any other district pursuant to the said notification. Under general condition 25(b), an application was liable to be summarily rejected if a candidate had applied for more than one district for a post in response to the said notification. Under condition No. 29 it was enumerated that if a candidate was, inter alia, found guilty of making any false statement in the application, he was liable to be debarred from applying for the post either permanently or for any particular period and if such a person had already appeared in any written or practical test that would be considered invalid and if any appointment made, a criminal prosecution may be initiated against him and action for removal from service be taken.Thereafter on 11.4.1996 a short notification was issued by the Commission which was published in the newspaper inviting applications for filling up the said posts and last date of receipt of applications was 15.5.1996 and it was enumerated therein that for more details the concerned gazette notification dated 2.4.1996 should be referred. Pursuant to the said notification 1270 persons applied, out of whom 436 persons applied for more than one district. In all 1233 persons appeared in written test conducted on 8.7.1998 in all the 14 district simultaneously. In the year 1999, candidature of all those 436 persons was rejected either on the ground that they had applied for more than one district or they had given false declaration in the application form that they had not applied to any other district while in fact they had so applied.Appellants in civil appeals arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 4955-4966 of 2000 and SLP (C) No. 12254 of 2000 filed separate writ applications challenging the aforesaid order of the rejection of their candidature which were dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court under two separate judgments. Sole appellant in civil appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 11170 of 2000 filed a separate writ application challenging order of rejection of his candidature and the same was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court which order was upheld by a Division Bench. The aforesaid orders passed by the High Court are subject matter of challenge in these cases.When these SLPs were placed for consideration before a two judge bench on 2.2.2001, it was pointed out that in SLP (C) No. 12562 of 1999, such order passed by the High Court was upheld by this Court by dismissing the SLP on 13.9.99 by a speaking order, whereas in other SLPs notices were issued and interim orders passed. In view of these facts the Bench thought it appropriate that the matter may be considered by a larger bench and accordingly these cases have been placed before us. It may be necessary to refer to order dated 13.9.99 passed in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 12562 of 1999 which runs thuspetitioner knew that she could apply for a post in only one district. She applied for posts in two districts while stating in each of the forms that she had applied only for that district. This having been discovered after she was in employment, the employment has been cancelled. The High Court has declined her relief on her writ petition. We concur with the High Court. Having regard to her conduct, our discretion under Article 136 is not available toSpecial Leave Petition is dismissed."

Reasoning:
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.