IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 29163 of 2009(M)
1. ABDU MANAF, S/O.MUHAMMED K
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
... Respondent
2. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
For Petitioner :SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :03/11/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.29163 of 2009
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 3rd day of November, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner was a candidate in response to Ext.P1
notification published by the 2nd respondent for filling up the post
of Meter Reader/Spot Biller under the 1st respondent. The petitioner
appeared for the test and finally by Ext.P4 his candidature was
invalidated for the reason that register number not bubbled or
wrongly bubbled.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the Commission does
not have a case that due to error in the bubbling, the process of
selection was in any way affected or that the identity of the
candidate became unknown or obscure. It is also his case that in
view of the fact that the register number is written separately and
correctly, there is no case of even a wrong identification. It is
contended that in such a situation, it is arbitrary to invalidate the
candidature of an applicant.
3. However, it is seen from the instructions issued by the
WP(C) No.29163/2009
-2-
PSC to the candidates, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P5 in the
writ petition, it was specified that in case any mistake is committed
in the bubbling, the candidature is liable to be invalidated.
According to the PSC, there has been a mistake in the bubbling, and
by invalidating the candidature, they were only enforcing the
instructions strictly and uniformly.
4. It is not in dispute that the instructions required the PSC
to invalidate the candidature of an applicant, in case a mistake has
been committed in bubbling. In this case, evidently it was because
of this reason that the candidature was invalidated. If that be so,
the PSC was only enforcing the instructions it has issued, which is
referred to above as Ext.P5 and the PSC cannot be faulted for such
an action, which it is bound to take.
5. My attention is also invited to the judgment of a learned
Single Judge in WP(C) No.34380/2008 dated 28/01/2009, where on
account of a mistake in bubbling the rejection of candidature of an
applicant has been upheld by this Court, and it has been held that
the PSC is bound to observe the instructions strictly in the light of
the larger public interest, and that when the consequences of the
WP(C) No.29163/2009
-3-
breach have been clearly spelled out and discretion is not given to
condone the same, the instructions should be strictly observed.
In view of the judgment also, I cannot find fault with the PSC in
invalidating the candidature of the petitioner.
This writ petition fails, and is accordingly dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg