Loading...

Babu M.S vs State Of Kerala on 9 January, 2009

Kerala High Court
Babu M.S vs State Of Kerala on 9 January, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP.No. 28375 of 2001(C)



1. BABU M.S.
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY

                For Respondent  :SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :09/01/2009

 O R D E R
                              S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

                       ==================

                          O.P.No. 28375 of 2001

                       ==================

                Dated this the 9th day of January, 2009

                              J U D G M E N T

The petitioner and the 5th respondent have the same name,

same initial and same address. They are cousins. The petitioner

submitted application pursuant to the notification issued by the PSC for

selection to the post of Overseer Grade III (Civil) in the Public Works

Department. The petitioner did not get advice and appointment.

Subsequently, the petitioner went abroad in search of employment.

When he came back, he came to know that the 5th respondent got

appointment in the said selection. According to the petitioner, that

appointment was by impersonating the petitioner. In the above

circumstances, the petitioner has filed this original petition seeking the

following relief:

“I. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to take effective and
expeditious action on Exts.P2 and P3 to throw out the 5th
respondent from service and enable the petitioner to get
appointment as Overseer Grade III with effect from the due date
with all consequential benefits within a time limit to be fixed by
this Hon’ble Court.”

2. The petitioner would contend that the entire process of

appointment of the 5th respondent is very suspicious. He relies mainly

on Ext.P6(a) series which are identification certificates of the 5th

respondent issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission in several

o.p.28375/01 2

selections. The petitioner points out that Ext.P6(a) is the identification

certificate for the selection, which is in question in this original petition.

According to the petitioner, the signature of the 5th respondent in

Ext.P6(a) drastically differs from that in Exts.P6(b) and P6(c). In

Ext.P6(c) the 5th respondent signed on the photograph extending the

signature to the certificate also, whereas in Ext.P6(a) the signature is

confined to the photograph alone, which is not the normal procedure

for putting the signature in the photograph in an identification

certificate so as to obviate the possibility of substituting the

photograph. The petitioner further points out that there is difference

between Ext.P5 and Ext.R5(f) which are communications issued by

the PSC, printed in the Government press in the same series. The

petitioner points out that both are issued for the same selection and

both contained the same endorsement from the Government Press.

But the arrangement of signatures in both differs, although the matter

is the same. The petitioner points out that in Ext.P5, below the

signature of the signatory of the communication, there is initial of the

Section Clerk on the left hand side, whereas in Ext.R5(f), the initial is

just below the signature of the author. According to the petitioner,

these are circumstances sufficient to come to the conclusion that there

is some manipulation in the matter of selection of the 5th respondent

for appointment warranting a detailed enquiry by an appropriate

o.p.28375/01 3

authority.

3. Counter affidavits and additional affidavits have been filed

by the 5th respondent. He would categorically deny every allegation

raised by the petitioner. According to him, signature appearing in

Ext.P6(a) was his signature in the year 1988 whereas the signatures

obtaining in Exts.R5(b) and R5(c) were put on 5.8.2003 and

6.12.2005. According to him, in 1988 he was fresh out of the school

and he had not yet decided on a permanent signature as such. To

prove this, he has also produced Ext.R5(g) which is the extract from

his SSLC book, wherein the signature of the 5th respondent is the same

as in Ext.P6(a). According to the 5th respondent, subsequently, when,

pursuant to the selection, he joined, the Section Clerk warned him that

signature to be put by him would be final and he cannot thereafter

change it and, therefore, he decided to have a stylish signature

adding his initial also, which resulted in the changed signatures in

Exts.P6(b) and P6(c). He would point out that the petitioner has filed

the complaint eight years after the 5th respondent’s appointment,

which itself is sufficient to dismiss the original petition. According to

the 5th respondent, there is no reason to suspect any manipulation in

the 5th respondent’s selection.

4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.

5. I note that the 3rd respondent, as per the direction of this

o.p.28375/01 4

Court, conducted an enquiry and filed a statement, wherein they have

stated that there is no manipulation in the selection process. It is also

pointed out that the 5th respondent’s is more qualified than the

petitioner. The petitioner is only an SSLC holder with 210 marks and

ITI certificate, whereas the 5th respondent passed Junior Technical

School Leaving Certificate course with 70.7 per cent marks. He has

also passed Diploma in Civil Engineering. It is pointed out that

subsequently he has studied privately and passed Civil Engineering

B.Tech. in December, 2000.

6. The learned Government Pleader has obtained a report

from the Government Press in this regard in the wake of the dispute

raised by the petitioner regarding the discrepancy between Ext.R5(f)

and Ext.P5. According to the learned Government Pleader, the report

filed discloses that the discrepancy may have occurred because of

printing in two batches simultaneously because of the large number of

forms required to be printed.

7. The PSC would submit that apart from the rank list and

advice memo, they are not in possession of any other records relating

to the selection in question in view of passage of time. As such, it is

impossible to conclusively decide the dispute raised in this matter. As

is clearly stated by the 3rd respondent in his statement to the effect

that although the PSC was addressed for forwarding those documents,

o.p.28375/01 5

only rank list and advice memo were made available. I am unable to

indict a person on the basis of such totally inconclusive materials. The

petitioner may have at the most succeeded in showing a vague

suspicion with the materials which he has relied upon. The explanation

submitted by the 5th respondent in respect of those materials, does not

appear to be unconvincing. In the above circumstances, I am not

prepared to interfere with the selection of the 5th respondent on such

totally inconclusive materials. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this

original petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed.

Sd/-

sdk+                                            S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

          ///True copy///




                              P.A. to Judge

    S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

================

O.P.No. 28375 of 2001-C

================




    J U D G M E N T


  9th January, 2009

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information