IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 25449 of 2009(R)
1. SUBASH M.P., AGED 35 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.RAJENDRAN
For Respondent :SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :21/12/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
W.P.(C.)-------------------------of 2009
Nos.25449 (R) & 28866 (R)
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 21st day of December, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The issue being common, these cases are disposed of by this
common judgment and reference is made to the pleadings in WP(C)
No.25449/2009.
2. The respondent published Ext.R1(a) notification dated
04/12/2008 inviting applications for the post of Chauffer Gr.II.
Ext.P1 is the news item concerning the said notification. Ext.P2 is a
copy of the format of the application submitted by the petitioner
herein. Immediately after submitting the application, he submitted
Ext.P3 informing the respondent that he omitted to sign on the
photograph affixed on his application and therefore, he may be
permitted to produce the signed photograph enclosed to Ext.P3 and
allowed to participate in the written examination. However, by
Ext.P4 dated 29/09/2009, his application was rejected stating that
he had not signed the photograph affixed on the application
submitted. On receipt of Ext.P4, this writ petition is filed seeking to
quash Ext.P4 and to allow him to take part in the selection process.
WP(C) Nos.25449 & 28866/2009
-2-
3. The case of the petitioner is that the requirement to sign
on the photograph affixed on the application was not a part of the
notification, and was only a requirement on the application form. It
is stated that this was not a mandatory condition and that at any
rate, as the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 request to be permitted to
cure the defect, he ought to have been allowed an opportunity to
rectify the defect.
4. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel
appearing for the respondent submits that in response to the
notification referred to above, 6501 applications were received. It is
stated that the Administrative Committee of the High Court
considered the applications in its meeting held on 09/07/2009 and
resolved to reject the applications with the following defects:-
“(a) No signature on the photograph
(b) Copy of caste certificate not attached and fee not remitted.
(c) Age not specified.
(d) Belated applications
(e) Photograph not affixed on the application.
(f) Unsigned applications
(g) Candidates not having prescribed educational qualifications
(h) Candidates not possessing driving licence.
(i) Applications by over aged persons; and
(j) Applications not supported by fee.”
WP(C) Nos.25449 & 28866/2009
-3-
5. It is stated that accordingly, 2599 applications were
rejected, out of which, 1992 were for not signing on the photograph
as required. According to the respondent, this was a case where the
petitioners have not complied with the conditions of the notification,
that required them to sign across the photograph affixed in the
application form. It is stated that its inevitable consequence was
rejection of their applications, and that precisely is what the
respondent has done.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the
judgment of the Apex Court in T.Jayakumar v. A.Gopu and Another
(2008(9) SCC 403), while the learned counsel for the respondent
relied on the judgments of 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).
7. I have considered the submissions made. True, as
contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the
notification did not contain the requirement that the applicants
should paste a photograph in the application form and put his/her
WP(C) Nos.25449 & 28866/2009
-4-
signature across the photograph. However, Ext.P2 format of the
application contains a column with the following instructions; “Paste
your recent passport size photograph and sign across it (Do not
staple or pin)”. Therefore, the candidates required to paste a recent
passport size photograph and put signature across the photograph.
Ext.R1(b) is the application submitted by the petitioner, which
shows that the petitioner did not put his signature on the
photograph. The petitioners in these cases do not have a case that
they had affixed their signature on the photographs. Therefore,
there has been violation of the instruction requiring the candidates
to affix their signature. When such a condition has not been
complied with, it is up to the appointing authority to consider
whether the same is to be condoned or not. In this case, the
Administrative Committee of the High Court, in its meeting held on
09/07/2009 resolved not to condone such defects and to reject the
defective applications. It was accordingly that the applications of
the petitioners were rejected.
8. The question is whether when the appointing authority
decided to reject the applications for non-compliance with the
WP(C) Nos.25449 & 28866/2009
-5-
conditions of the recruitment, this Court should interfere with such
a matter. In my view, this question has already been answered by
this Court in the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the
respondent.
9. The first judgment he relied on is the judgment of a
Division Bench of this Court in Kerala Public Service Commission v.
Varghese and others (ILR 1977(1) Kerala 523). That was a case
where the applicant did not produce the original chalan receipt, but
produced a duplicate copy issued under the Treasury Code. The
PSC rejected the application for not producing the original chalan
receipt. That was called in question and the Original Petition was
allowed. The appeal filed by the PSC was dealt with by a Division
Bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgment. It was held that if
the PSC insists upon accompaniment of the original chalan receipt,
such a requirement cannot be said to be an unreasonable one and
that once the requirement is held to be not unreasonable, it is not
open for this Court to go into the question further. Proceeding
further, it has been held that if the PSC has prescribed production of
the original chalan receipt as a requirement, non-compliance
WP(C) Nos.25449 & 28866/2009
-6-
therewith must result in the rejection of the application, and that
the PSC cannot be expected to investigate further in a case where
the application is not in compliance with the requirements. Finally it
has been held thus :-
“We do not think that it is fair to interfere in these matters unless
it is shown that has been malafides in the conduct of the
Commission or any of its Officers in the matter of rejecting
application or there has been cellousness or disregard of its own
directions. If the circumstances indicate only a rejection of an
application for non-compliance with the requirements specified by
its own notification, merely because this Court feels it is
unfortunate that the application happened to be rejected it may
not be fair for this Court to direct the Pubic Service Commission to
entertain the application. Of course, the Public Service
Commission has certainly power in appropriate cases to look into
such matters and entertain applications if it finds that the
circumstances justify such entertainment. But that discretion must
be left to the Public Service Commission and the Public Service
Commission cannot be compelled to exercise such discretion in
any given cases.”
10. The 2nd judgment cited by the learned counsel for the
respondent is in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Saroja
Nambiar (ILR 1978(2) Kerala 241). That was a case where the
documents which were required to be produced were not enclosed
to the application. The application was rejected and the Original
WP(C) Nos.25449 & 28866/2009
-7-
Petition filed challenging the rejection was allowed. Allowing the
appeal filed by the PSC, in paragraph 5 of the judgment, it has been
held thus:-
“5. In our opinion, the appellant is right in its contention that in
as much as the petitioner had failed to comply with the conditions
stipulated in the notification regarding production of the
documents in proof of possession by her of the prescribed
qualifications along with the application submitted by the
candidate to the Pubic Service Commission, the Pubic Service
Commission was acting fully within its rights in rejecting the
application, and, no interference was called for by this Court with
the orders, Exts.P4 and P6, passed by the Commission. It is not
contended by the first respondent that the conditions stipulated by
the Pubic Service Commission in the notification were in any way
unreasonable. Such being the case, it was fully within the
competence and jurisdiction of the Pubic Service Commission to
determine whether the application submitted by the petitioner was
a valid one in the sense of its having conformed to the stipulations
contained in the notification and to reject the same on its being
found that those conditions were not satisfied by the Writ
Petitioner.”
11. Following these two judgments, another Division Bench
of this Court rendered the judgment in Binimil K.G. v. K.P.S.C. (1997
(2) KLJ 477) holding that any violation of the conditions stipulated in
the notification is a ground for rejection of the application, and that
the Courts have always taken the stand that in such matters, the
WP(C) Nos.25449 & 28866/2009
-8-
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India cannot be extended.
12. In view of the aforesaid binding precedents for non-
compliance with the requirement of a notification, if an application
is rejected, this Court will not be justified in interfering with the
same, unless it is proved to be a malafide exercise of power. There
is no material or pleadings in this regard.
The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the
Apex Court judgment in T.Jayakumar v. A.Gopu and Another (2008
(9) SCC 403). That was a case, where the application did not bear
signature of the applicant, and the application was received after
the last date specified. However, despite the defects, the applicant
was called for interview and it was thereafter that his application
was rejected. The Apex Court upheld the rejection of the
application. But however directed to accommodate the candidate
against the available or future vacancies. Unlike in this case, that
was a case where irrespective of the defects, the applicant was
allowed to participate in the selection process. In my understanding
this was a case, where the Apex Court exercised its discretion under
WP(C) Nos.25449 & 28866/2009
-9-
Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which discretion, this Court
does not have. Therefore, the said judgment does not advance the
case of the petitioner, in any manner.
These writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg