IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 4259 of 2011(F)
1. VEENA .S, AGED 36 YEARS, W/O.SETHUNATH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA PUBLIC SRVICE COMMISSION,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA
For Petitioner :SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :09/02/2011
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W.P(C) No. 4259 of 2011
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 9th day of February, 2011.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is a practicing lawyer belonging to the Hindu
Ezhava community. She applied for the post of Secretary in Grama
Panchayats pursuant to a notification inviting applications published
by the Public Service Commission. In the application, the petitioner
did not fill up the column relating to claim for reservation. She
appeared for the interview and according to the petitioner, when it
was pointed out to the petitioner that she has not claimed reservation,
she has submitted a caste certificate in accordance with law. But she
is not being considered as an Ezhava candidate and is being
considered only as an open category candidate, is the grievance of the
petitioner in this writ petition. The petitioner therefore seeks the
following relief:
“Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction directing the 1st respondent to include the petitioner in
the rank list prepared for Ezhava community for the post of Grama
Panchayat Secretary.”
2. The learned standing counsel for the Public Service
Commission submits that the issue is squarely covered against the
petitioner by the decision of this Court in Shaji v. Kerala Public
Service Commission, 2011(1) KLT 99. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the said decision can be distinguished on
facts. According to counsel for the petitioner, in that decision, the
petitioner therein had filled up the column relating to reservation in
the negative, whereas in the petitioner’s case, she bona fide omitted
to fill up the column relating to reservation.
I am of opinion that there is no distinguishing features between
W.P(C) No. 4259/11 -: 2 :-
the facts of the two cases in the matter of application of the law
laid down by this Court. In both, the candidate has not claimed
reservation in the application form. The law laid down in the
above decision is that a candidate who did not claim benefit of
reservation in the application form cannot subsequently claim
benefit after the select list is published and Rule 40 of the Public
Service Commission Rules of Procedure, 1976 cannot be invoked
as a matter of right by a candidate to allow the candidate to
rectify a mistake in the application submitted before the Public
Service Commission. Therefore, the said judgment is squarely
applicable to the facts situation in this case also. Accordingly,
following that decision this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/
[TRUE COPY]
P.S TO JUDGE.