IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 1811 of 2009(N)
1. SAJEESH K., VIRUSSERIL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
... Respondent
2. CHIEF ENGINEER
For Petitioner :SRI.JACOB P.ALEX
For Respondent :SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :30/01/2009
O R D E R
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO: 1811 of 2009
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of January, 2009
JUDGMENT
In this case, the application submitted by the petitioner for
selection to the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) under
the Department of Irrigation stands rejected by the Kerala
Public Service Commission as per Ext.P4 for the reason that
there is difference in the signature in the application and the
one put at the time of interview.
2. The petitioner was assigned Registration No.100894 for
appearing in the written test on 6.1.2007. Ext.P2 is the
Admission Ticket and Ext.P3 is the interview card. The
interview was held on 6.8.2008. Apparently, the difference in
the signature of the petitioner seen in the application form and
the one obtained at the time of interview, was noticed and he
was directed to give an explanation in the matter.
3. According to the petitioner, there was a time gap about
two years between the date of submission of application and
interview. He had attributed one more reason; that he was
involved in an accident while playing cricket and had dislocation
in the middle finger(Right hand) and the alleged difference may
wpc:1811 of 2009
2
also be due to this fact. It is pointed out that at the relevant
time of the submission of application he was undergoing
treatment by Dr.Manoj V.V., Orthopdic Surgeon, Medical
College, Alappuzha. Ext.P4 is the ranked list published on
11.15.2008. His name was not included therein. Ext.P5 is the
representation submitted by the petitioner seeking for inclusion
in the ranked list and offering explanation regarding the
difference in the two signatures.
4. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit. It is
pointed out that the petitioner was not included in the ranked
list for the above mentioned post as difference in signature was
noticed in the application and that subscribed by the candidate
during certificate verification and in other related documents.
Exts.R1(a) & R1(b) are the copies of application submitted by
the petitioner and the Identification Certificate, bearing the
signature respectively. Ext.R1(c) is the Circular issued
containing guidelines for the Commission to act in such cases. It
is pointed out that the petitioner had submitted an application
Ext.R1(d) explaining all facts regarding the difference in
signature in the application. Still, the Commission maintains
the stand that in view of the difference in signature in the
wpc:1811 of 2009
3
application, his application was rejected and his name was not
included in the ranked list, rightly.
5. In Ext.R1(c), the procedure prescribed shows that on
verification of the documents, if the Commission finds any
difference is there in the signature in the application, then a
statement in writing from the candidate has to be taken showing
the reasons for the difference. After examining it, if it could be
seen that the difference arose not due to any deliberate action,
the application can be accepted. If the Commission finds that
there is evidence to show that the applicant is not the person
who has subscribed the signature either in the application or in
the documents, the application could be rejected.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that in the light of Exts.R1(c) and R1(d) the
explanation made by the petitioner ought to have been accepted
by the Commission. He has stated therein that the difference
occurred because of the lapse of time between the date of
submission of the application and the date on which the
certificate was verified.
7. I find force in the above argument raised by the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner. When the candidate has
wpc:1811 of 2009
4
given due explanation, going by R1(c), it can be accepted unless
there is evidence on the contrary. There is nothing to show that
the difference arose due to any deliberate action. Therefore,
unless there are sufficient evidence before the Commission to
show that it is not the candidate who has subscribed signature
on the application and on the documents, Ext.R1(d) certificate
given by the candidate has to be accepted. In the absence of
any evidence contrary, the explanation has to be accepted.
Therefore, the rejection of the application of the petitioner
cannot be sustained. There will be a direction to the 1st
respondent Commission to include the name of the petitioner at
the appropriate place in the ranked list, if he is found otherwise
eligible and going by the results. In that process if it is found
that any candidate lower in the list has been already advised
and appointed, the rights of those candidates will not be affects
by this direction. The writ petition is allowed as above. No
costs.
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
JUDGE
bps