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