{"id":57823,"date":"2009-08-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-jayalekshmy-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-19-august-2009"},"modified":"2019-02-22T22:47:16","modified_gmt":"2019-02-22T17:17:16","slug":"u-jayalekshmy-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-19-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-jayalekshmy-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-19-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"U.Jayalekshmy vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 19 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
U.Jayalekshmy vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 19 August, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 12623 of 2009(W)\n\n\n1. U.JAYALEKSHMY, ULLAS, ARIMBASSERI,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN\n\n Dated :19\/08\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                            P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.\n                   -----------------------------\n                      W.P(C) No. 12623 of 2009-W\n                   ------------------------------\n               Dated this the 19th day of August, 2009.\n\n                             J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
            By a notification published in the Kerala Gazette dated<\/p>\n
28.3.2007, the Kerala Public Service Commission, hereinafter referred to<\/p>\n
as the ‘Commission’ for short, invited applications for appointment to the<\/p>\n
post of Assistant Gr.II\/Junior Clerk\/LDC etc, in various Government<\/p>\n
owned Companies\/Corporations\/Boards etc. The last date prescribed for<\/p>\n
submission of applications was 2.5.2007, but it was later extended upto<\/p>\n
9.5.2007. Though a copy of the notification has not been produced by<\/p>\n
either side, it is not in dispute that as per the notification, applications<\/p>\n
could be submitted either in the conventional method ie. by filling up<\/p>\n
and submitting a printed form or on-line.\n<\/p>\n
            2.     The petitioner applied in the conventional      method.<\/p>\n
Her application was entertained and the admission ticket evidenced by<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 was issued, inviting her to appear for the objective type test that<\/p>\n
was held on 23.3.2008. The petitioner appeared for the written test. She<\/p>\n
was found eligible and was included in the short list published on<\/p>\n
7.2.2009. She was thereafter called to appear for verification of<\/p>\n
documents that was held on 26.2.2009. According to the petitioner, at<\/p>\n
the time of verification, her application was rejected on the ground that<\/p>\n
W.P(C) No. 12623 of 2009-W             2<\/span><\/p>\n
she had not affixed her signature in the application form, though the<\/p>\n
certificates were in order. It is stated that an endorsement was made on<\/p>\n
the original of her application that the “application is rejected”. The<\/p>\n
petitioner thereafter submitted Ext.P2 representation dated 2.3.2009<\/p>\n
addressed to the Chairman of the Commission requesting him to treat<\/p>\n
her application as a valid application for the post. This writ petition was<\/p>\n
thereafter filed seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding<\/p>\n
the respondents to consider the petitioner’s application as a valid<\/p>\n
application. The petitioner has also prayed for a declaration that as the<\/p>\n
Commission had entertained on-line applications that do not bear the<\/p>\n
signature of candidates, for the very same post under the very same<\/p>\n
notification, her application is in order.\n<\/p>\n
       3.     When this writ petition came up for admission on 24.4.2009,<\/p>\n
this Court while admitting the writ petition directed the Commission to<\/p>\n
consider the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P2 representation<\/p>\n
having regard to the fact that on-line applications which do not bear the<\/p>\n
signature of the applicants were also entertained by the Commission.<\/p>\n
The Commission had two days before the said interim order was passed,<\/p>\n
informed the petitioner by Ext.P3 letter dated        22.4.2009 that her<\/p>\n
application was rejected for the reason that she had not affixed her<\/p>\n
signature therein. Later as directed by this Court, the       Commission<\/p>\n
W.P(C) No. 12623 of 2009-W             3<\/span><\/p>\n
considered the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P2 representation<\/p>\n
and informed her by Ext.P4 letter dated 16.7.2009 that as her application<\/p>\n
did not bear her signature, the Commission that met on 1.6.2009<\/p>\n
resolved to reject her application. This writ petition was thereafter<\/p>\n
amended by incorporating a challenge to Ext.P4.\n<\/p>\n
       4.     I heard Sri.M.K.Damodaran, the learned Senior Advocate<\/p>\n
appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Alexander Thomas, the learned<\/p>\n
standing counsel appearing for the Kerala Public Service Commission.<\/p>\n
The petitioner contends that as the Commission had received and<\/p>\n
entertained on-line applications which do not admittedly bear the<\/p>\n
signature of the applicants for the very same post under the very same<\/p>\n
notification, the failure to affix her signature in the conventional<\/p>\n
application form looses significance and therefore the rejection of her<\/p>\n
application at a belated stage, namely after the publication of the<\/p>\n
shortlist, is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner also contends that as on-<\/p>\n
line applications which do not bear the signature of candidates were<\/p>\n
entertained, the rejection of conventional applications which do not bear<\/p>\n
the signature of candidates is discriminatory. The Commission has filed<\/p>\n
a counter affidavit dated 24.6.2009 and an additional affidavit dated<\/p>\n
22.7.2009. In the counter affidavit dated 24.6.2009, the Commission<\/p>\n
has contended relying on para 26(b) and para 29 of the              General<\/p>\n
W.P(C) No. 12623 of 2009-W           4<\/span><\/p>\n
Conditions that the petitioner’s application which admittedly did not bear<\/p>\n
her signature was liable to be rejected and was rightly rejected by the<\/p>\n
Commission. It is stated that a detailed scrutiny of the applications was<\/p>\n
not done before the OMR Test was held on 23.3.2008 and that as the<\/p>\n
petitioner had applied in the conventional method, her application which<\/p>\n
lacked her signature cannot be treated as a complete one. As regards the<\/p>\n
petitioner’s contention that on-line applications which do not bear the<\/p>\n
signature of candidates were entertained, the Commission has stated that<\/p>\n
the on-line applications cannot be equated with conventional applications<\/p>\n
and that it is not possible for the Commission to obtain the signature of<\/p>\n
candidates on the on-line applications.     Relying on Para 28(a) of the<\/p>\n
General Conditions it is contended that the candidature of every applicant<\/p>\n
is provisional at all stages and that the Commission has power to reject<\/p>\n
the candidature at any stage. The Commission also relies on the decision<\/p>\n
of the Apex Court in Ashok V. PSC (2001(2) KLT 788) and the decisions<\/p>\n
of this Court in W.P(C) Nos.34380 of 2008, 2748 of 2009, W.A.Nos.1697<\/p>\n
of 2007 and 2506 of 2007 to contend that when the consequences of<\/p>\n
non adherence to the General Conditions have been laid down and the<\/p>\n
Commission has not been given the discretion to condone the breach, the<\/p>\n
consequences following the breach have to be taken and therefore<\/p>\n
the action taken by the Commission is not arbitrary or illegal. The<\/p>\n
W.P(C) No. 12623 of 2009-W            5<\/span><\/p>\n
Commission has also referred to and relied on the decision of this Court<\/p>\n
in Rangaswamy V. KPSC(1982 KLT 575) and of the Apex Court in<\/p>\n
T.Jayakumar V. A.Gopy & another (2008(9) SCC 403) in support of their<\/p>\n
stand. During the course of arguments, the learned standing counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for the Commission contended relying on Rule 15A of the<\/p>\n
Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure that the<\/p>\n
Commission has the power to correct any clerical, typographical,<\/p>\n
arithmetical or other mistake in the ranked lists, advice lists or short lists<\/p>\n
etc., or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission at any<\/p>\n
time, either on its own motion or on the application of any of the parties<\/p>\n
concerned and that the Commission has rejected the petitioner’s<\/p>\n
application in exercise of the inherent power thus reserved with the<\/p>\n
Commission.\n<\/p>\n
       5.    I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the<\/p>\n
learned counsel appearing on either side.       The Commission does not<\/p>\n
dispute the fact that the notification inviting applications for the post in<\/p>\n
question permitted submission of applications in the conventional<\/p>\n
method and also on-line.        It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s<\/p>\n
application was never subjected to scrutiny at the threshold and that she<\/p>\n
was permitted to appear for the written test held nearly one year after the<\/p>\n
notification inviting applications was published in the official gazette.<\/p>\n
The written test was held on 23.3.2008 and the shortlist was published<\/p>\n
W.P(C) No. 12623 of 2009-W              6<\/span><\/p>\n
nearly one year thereafter on 7.2.2009. Thus for a period of nearly two<\/p>\n
years the Commission had acted on the petitioner’s application and called<\/p>\n
her to appear for the written test. Her name was also included in the<\/p>\n
short list published on 7.2.2009. On 26.2.2009, when the verification of<\/p>\n
documents was conducted and the petitioner appeared for the same, on<\/p>\n
noticing that the petitioner’s conventional application did not bear her<\/p>\n
signature, the Commission rejected her application.         The Commission<\/p>\n
justifies its stand relying on the General Conditions which stipulate that<\/p>\n
failure to affix the candidate’s signature in the application form will entail<\/p>\n
rejection of the application.      The Commission also places reliance on<\/p>\n
various decisions of this Court and of the Apex Court which recognises<\/p>\n
such power in the Commission.\n<\/p>\n
       6.     In the instant case, the method of selection is by written test.<\/p>\n
Rule 4 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure<\/p>\n
governs the conduct of the written test. Rule 4 stipulates that where a<\/p>\n
written examination and\/or a practical test is conducted by the<\/p>\n
Commission for recruitment to a service or post, the Commission shall<\/p>\n
             (i) announce\n<\/p>\n
             (a)    the qualifications required of the candidates for the
\n                    examination,\n<\/p>\n
             (b)    the conditions of admission to the examination
\n                    including the fees,\n<\/p>\n
             (c)    the subjects, scheme or syllabus of the examination,
\n                    and\n<\/p>\n
             (d)   the number of vacancies to be filled from among the<\/p>\n
W.P(C) No. 12623 of 2009-W           7<\/span><\/p>\n
            candidates for the examination.\n<\/p>\n
             7.     When the Commission publishes a notification, it<\/p>\n
complies with rule 4(i) by announcing the qualifications and other matters<\/p>\n
referred to in rule 4(i). It also complies with sub rule (ii) of rule 4 which<\/p>\n
stipulates that the Commission shall invite applications and consider all<\/p>\n
the applications so received.      Sub rule (iii) of rule 4 stipulates the<\/p>\n
Commission shall make all arrangements for the conduct of the<\/p>\n
examination for the candidates whose applications are found to be in<\/p>\n
order.    Sub rule (iv) of rule 4 stipulates that the Commission shall<\/p>\n
thereafter prepare a list in the order of merit of such number of<\/p>\n
candidates as the Commission may determine from time to time. Similar<\/p>\n
stipulations also find a place in rule 5 which governs selection by<\/p>\n
interview. A reading of rules 4 and 5 indicates that the Commission is<\/p>\n
bound to scrutinize the applications received and make arrangements for<\/p>\n
the conduct of the examination or the oral test in respect of candidates<\/p>\n
whose applications are found to be in order. In the instant case, the<\/p>\n
Commission admittedly did not follow the said procedure. The fact that<\/p>\n
there was no scrutiny of the applications before the written test was<\/p>\n
conducted, is not in dispute. After the shortlist was published, the<\/p>\n
Commission rejected the petitioner’s application on the ground that it did<\/p>\n
not bear her signature. The learned standing counsel for the<\/p>\n
W.P(C) No. 12623 of 2009-W           8<\/span><\/p>\n
Commission submits that in view of the fact that a large number of<\/p>\n
applications were received, the Commission was not in a position to<\/p>\n
scrutinize all the applications and invite only those candidates whose<\/p>\n
applications were in order, for the written test. The selection process<\/p>\n
commenced when the notification was published in the Official Gazette<\/p>\n
dated     28.3.2007.     According to the Commission, 32251 on-line<\/p>\n
applications and 1,19,758 conventional applications were received<\/p>\n
pursuant to the said notification. The written test was conducted only<\/p>\n
one year later on 23.3.2008. In my opinion, the Commission ought to<\/p>\n
have during the said period of one year conducted a scrutiny of the<\/p>\n
applications and rejected applications submitted in the conventional<\/p>\n
method if they did not bear the signature of the candidate.             The<\/p>\n
Commission, which is entrusted with the duty to select candidates for<\/p>\n
appointment to public services cannot in my opinion be heard to say that<\/p>\n
it does not have the duty to adhere to the rules in the matter of scrutiny<\/p>\n
or verification of applications. The said contention is in my opinion liable<\/p>\n
to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
       7.    The Commission does not dispute the fact that on-line<\/p>\n
applications do not bear the signature of the candidate. The Commission<\/p>\n
has not brought to my notice any provision in the Kerala Public Service<\/p>\n
Commission Rules of Procedure, which permits the Commission to<\/p>\n
W.P(C) No. 12623 of 2009-W           9<\/span><\/p>\n
receive on-line applications without signature or dispenses with the<\/p>\n
signature of candidates in on-line applications. The General Conditions<\/p>\n
according to the Commission, apply uniformly and to all candidates. In<\/p>\n
the instant case, the Commission had invited applications both on-line<\/p>\n
and in the conventional method. In the absence of any stipulation in the<\/p>\n
General Conditions that on-line applications which do not satisfy the<\/p>\n
stipulations in the General Conditions especially the signature part will<\/p>\n
also be entertained, I am of the opinion that the rejection of the<\/p>\n
petitioner’s application after she was permitted to appear for the written<\/p>\n
test and her name was shortlisted, on the short ground that the<\/p>\n
application submitted by her did not bear her signature is arbitrary. If<\/p>\n
applications which do not bear the signature of the candidate is liable to<\/p>\n
be rejected, the Commission ought to have in my opinion rejected all the<\/p>\n
32251 on-line applications. That has not been done. Evidently because<\/p>\n
of that fact, the failure of the petitioner to affix her signature in the<\/p>\n
conventional application submitted by her was also condoned by the<\/p>\n
Commission and she was permitted to appear for the written test. In<\/p>\n
other words, from the conduct of the Commission in entertaining the<\/p>\n
petitioner’s application and in permitting her to appear for the written<\/p>\n
test, it has to be presumed on the peculiar facts of this case, that the<\/p>\n
Commission had condoned the failure of the petitioner to affix her<\/p>\n
W.P(C) No. 12623 of 2009-W            10<\/span><\/p>\n
signature in the application form.        The Commission has not stated<\/p>\n
before me that any other application was likewise rejected.         In such<\/p>\n
circumstances, I am persuaded to hold that the petitioner’s application<\/p>\n
was illegally rejected.\n<\/p>\n
       In the result, I allow this writ petition, quash Exts.P3 and P4 direct<\/p>\n
the Kerala Public Service Commission to treat the petitioner’s application<\/p>\n
as a valid application. All the necessary consequences shall follow.<\/p>\n
                                               Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                       P.N.RAVINDRAN
\n                                              JUDGE<\/p>\n
                    \/\/True Copy\/\/<\/p>\n
                                       PA to Judge
\nab<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court U.Jayalekshmy vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 19 August, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 12623 of 2009(W) 1. U.JAYALEKSHMY, ULLAS, ARIMBASSERI, … Petitioner Vs 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION … Respondent 2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN For Respondent :SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC The Hon’ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-57823","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nU.Jayalekshmy vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 19 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-jayalekshmy-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-19-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"U.Jayalekshmy vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 19 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-jayalekshmy-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-19-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-22T17:17:16+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-jayalekshmy-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-19-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-jayalekshmy-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-19-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"U.Jayalekshmy vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 19 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-22T17:17:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-jayalekshmy-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-19-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2183,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-jayalekshmy-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-19-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-jayalekshmy-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-19-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-jayalekshmy-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-19-august-2009\",\"name\":\"U.Jayalekshmy vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 19 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-22T17:17:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-jayalekshmy-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-19-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-jayalekshmy-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-19-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-jayalekshmy-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-19-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"U.Jayalekshmy vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 19 August, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"U.Jayalekshmy vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 19 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-jayalekshmy-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-19-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"U.Jayalekshmy vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 19 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-jayalekshmy-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-19-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-22T17:17:16+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-jayalekshmy-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-19-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-jayalekshmy-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-19-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"U.Jayalekshmy vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 19 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-22T17:17:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-jayalekshmy-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-19-august-2009"},"wordCount":2183,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-jayalekshmy-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-19-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-jayalekshmy-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-19-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-jayalekshmy-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-19-august-2009","name":"U.Jayalekshmy vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 19 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-22T17:17:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-jayalekshmy-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-19-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-jayalekshmy-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-19-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-jayalekshmy-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-19-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"U.Jayalekshmy vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 19 August, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/57823","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=57823"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/57823\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=57823"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=57823"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=57823"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}