Loading...

Jose Prakash.G vs The Secretary To The Public … on 26 July, 2010

Kerala High Court
Jose Prakash.G vs The Secretary To The Public … on 26 July, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 18356 of 2010(T)


1. JOSE PRAKASH.G,KACHAPPALLY HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE SECRETARY TO THE PUBLIC COMMISSIONER
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :26/07/2010

 O R D E R
                          S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                     W.P.(C)No. 18356 of 2010
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
               Dated this the 26th day of July, 2010

                            J U D G M E N T

The petitioner lost his S.S.L.C. book. He wanted a

duplicate S.S.L.C. Book. He applied for the same. He has

not been favoured with one. Therefore he had filed this writ

petition seeking the following reliefs:

“[a] Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the
respondent to issue a duplicate S.S.L.C. Book to the
petitioner pursuant to Ext.P3 application submitted by
him and on the basis of Exts.P4 to P7 documents.”

2. A statement has been filed by the Government

Pleader wherein it is stated thus:

“2. The petitioner holder of SSLC with Register
No.306089 of March 1982 was an applicant for the duplicate
SSLC as per application No.Ex-J5/68449/2009. As per the
existing rules every applicant who apply in duplicate copy of
the SSLC should produce the following documents, failing
which the application will be treated as incomplete and hence
liable to be rejected. The required documents are

1. Application duly filed up by the candidate in the
prescribed format’

2. Original chalan receipt (for Rs.200/- for duplicate,
Rs.500/- for triplicate) remitted in the name of
applicant in a Government treasury of the Kerala
State

W.P.(C)No. 18356 of 2010
-2-

3. Declaration in the stamped paper of the candidate,
attested by a 1st Class Magistrate of the Judicial
Department under the seal of his Court’

4. If the original certificate is damaged the remnants
of the certificate is to be enclosed.

5. The prescribed notice (specimen copy attached
with the application form) to be published in any
daily newspapers approved by Public Relations
Department for obtaining the duplicate SSLC.

6. The application should be duly signed by applicant
and duly signed and forwarded by the
Headmaster/Principal of the school, from which the
applicant has presented to the SSLC Examination
first time.

3. In the case of the petitioner, his application was
incomplete in the sense that he has not submitted the
prescribed press notice as required in Sl.No.5 above. Hence
his application was rejected and he was directed to resubmit
the application, after rectifying the defects noted vide this
office letter No.J5/68449/2009/N.Dis dated 10.12.2009. At
present no application of the petitioner is pending in this office.
If the petitioner submit the application in full shape the
respondent can issue the duplicate certificate within a
reasonable period of time’. It is further submitted that, since
the application is disposed as ‘N.Dis’ no file is kept in the office.
The application itself was retained with endorsement to cure
the defect and it was recorded in the Personal Register of the
concerned Clerk. Therefore the respondent is not able to
produce the communication referred above.”

3. The petitioner submits that the petitioner has

already complied with all the requirements stated in the

statement. Apparently the dispute is as to compliance with

condition No.5. The Government Pleader would take the

contention that the petitioner has not published a notice as

W.P.(C)No. 18356 of 2010
-3-

per the specimen copy attached with the application form.

The petitioner would rely on Ext.P3 application form and

Ext.P4 paper publication made by him to show that he has

actually complied with that requirement also. Therefore I

passed an order on 19.07.2010 as follows:

“Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the only
defect in the application for duplicate SSLC book filed by the
petitioner, noted as per the statement filed by the Government
Pleader is that the prescribed notice has not been published in
the news papers as per the specimen copy attached with the
application form. According to him, there is no such defect at
all as is clear from Exts.P3 and P4. He points out that the
specimen advertisement is given at the bottom of Exts.P3 and
P4 advertisement made by the petitioner is in terms of that
specimen only. On a comparison of Exts.P3 and P4 although
there is some minor changes in words, substantially both
appears to be identical. The learned Government Pleader seeks
time to get instructions on the same.”

4. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also

today. The learned Government Pleader could not satisfy

me that Ext.P4 publication in the newspaper is not in

accordance with the specimen form prescribed in Ext.P3.

Therefore I am satisfied that the petitioner has complied

with all the requirements for obtaining a duplicate S.S.L.C.

Book. Accordingly this writ petition is allowed and the

respondent is directed to issue a duplicate S.S.L.C. Book to

W.P.(C)No. 18356 of 2010
-4-

the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate

within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a

copy of this judgment.

S. SIRI JAGAN
JUDGE

shg/

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