IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 38228 of 2007(A)
1. JOY JOSEPH, L.D.CLERK,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
... Respondent
2. THE JOINT SECRETARY,
For Petitioner :SRI.J.OMPRAKASH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :03/06/2008
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C).No.38228 & 38229 of 2007,
119 & 158 of 2008
-------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2008.
JUDGMENT
Similar issues arise in these writ petitions and therefore,
they have been considered together and disposed of by this common
judgment. W.P.(C)No.119/08 is taken as the leading case.
2. The petitioner had applied for the departmental test
conducted by the Public Service Commission on 7.1.2008. Her
application was rejected on the ground that she had not mentioned
her designation therein. The same has been challenged by the
petitioner in this writ petition.
3. Pursuant to an interim order passed on 2.1.2008, the
petitioner appeared for the departmental test.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
defect in her application, as noted in Ext.P1, is as follows:
“Your designation is not mentioned in the
application.”
5. Reference is made to Ext.P2 application form and it is
pointed out that only certain defects are treated as fatal. Reference is
made to Column VII forming part of the instructions to the candidates,
wherein it is pointed out that “the signature of the applicant on the 1st
W.P.(C).NO.38228/07 & con.cases
:: 2 ::
page of the application is mandatory and absence of such signature
will result in summary rejection of the application”. The format of
the application is also referred to. It is contended that the test in
question is a departmental test. After all, the lapse on the part of
the applicant to mention the designation does not result in the Public
Service Commission being put to difficulties in identifying the
applicant. The application submitted by a departmental candidate is
to be attested by the Head of the Office as well.
6. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners
Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, Sri.Omprakash, Sri.Ramachandran Nair and
Sri.Grashious Kuriakose and learned standing counsel for the Public
Service Commission Sri.Alexander Thomas.
7. Inconsequential defects in the application form should
entail a rejection of the application itself. There could be defects in
the application, which are curable. Where they are curable, the
Commission should afford an opportunity to the candidates to cure
the defects. If the defect is one, which is clearly mentioned as fatal
in the application form itself, then the consequences should follow.
If not, the further point of enquiry is whether, they are of such a
nature that it would be advisable for the Commission to permit the
W.P.(C).NO.38228/07 & con.cases
:: 3 ::
applicant to cure the same. The absence of any prejudice, by reason
of the defect, being caused to any other applicant is also a matter
which would weigh the Commission. The principles that should
govern the Commission, in this regard, have been laid down by this
court in Manoj Kumar v. Kerala Public Service Commission
{1999(2) KLT 534} followed in Prasad v. Kerala Public Service
Commission {2004(1) KLT SN page 26}.
8. In my view, the issue may, therefore, be considered by
the Public Service Commission.
9. In the result, the writ petitions are disposed of in the
following lines:
(a) The Commission may consider whether the defects
noted in the rejection memos issued in each one of
the cases itself is condonable or curable, as the case
may be.
(b) If they are so curable and condonable, an opportunity
may be granted to the petitioners, to cure the same.
(C) If the Public Service Commission feels that the
defects cannot be and should not be permitted to be
cured or condoned, then it shall issue a notice to the
applicant conveying its proposal to do so. Then the
applicants will be entitled to submit his/her
objections and if the Commission decides to to affirm
the proposal, it shall pass an order indicating its
W.P.(C).NO.38228/07 & con.cases
:: 4 ::
reasons for arriving at such a decision and
communicate the same to the applicants.
(d) The participation of the petitioners in the respective
examinations shall be treated as regular and valid
subject to the decision to be taken by the Commission
as aforementioned.
(e) If the Commission finds that the defect involved in
each one of the applications is curable and
condonable, it should be condoned or allowed to be
cured.
(f) The results of the participation of each one of the
applicants shall be declared and further consequential
action taken, subject to the decision to be taken by
the Commission as mentioned above.
The entire process as outlined above shall be completed
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment.
Sd/-
(V.GIRI)
JUDGE
sk/
//true copy//