Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013 10TH MAGHA 193 OP(KAT).No. 349 of 2013 (Z) --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA.2015/2012 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 10 10/2012 ........................... PETITIONER: -------------- DILEEP KUMAR, S/O.RAGHAVAN ASAN,CIVIL POLICE OFFICER NO.6011 THENMALA POLICE STATION,KOLLAM DISTRTICT RESIDING AT PUTHEN VEEDU,NEAR M.V.G.H.S., PEROOR T.K.M. COLLEGE P.O.,KOLLAM-691 005. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,PATTOM PALACE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.
2. THE REGIONAL OFFICER KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,REGIONAL OFFICE KOZHIKODE-673 001. BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(KAT).No. 349 of 2013 (Z) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS : EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.2015/2012 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,THIRUVANANTHPAURAM. ANNEXURE-A1. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DTED 15 9/2007 IN CATEGORY NO.317/2007 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT PSC. ANNEXURE-A2. TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET WITH REGISTER NOS.200550 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE APPLICANT. ANNEXURE-A3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTED 15 10/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN PSC. ANNEXURE-3A TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE-A3. ANNEXURE-4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE SHORT LIST PUBLISHED BY THE PSC CAGEGORY NO.317/2007. ANNEXURE-5 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAIL OF MARKS OF THE APPLICANT OBTAINED FROM THE PSC WEBSITE. ANNEXURE-6 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.13/2009 DATED 29 5/2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE-6A TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE-A6. ANNEXURE-37 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO.QR-11(3)56/10 DATED 26 11/2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE-7A TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE-A7. ANNEXURE-8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18 3/2011 IN WPC NO.38763/2010 OF THE HONOURABLE THIS COURT. EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OA NO.2015/2012 DATED 10 10/2012 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE LIST PUBLISHED BY THE RESPONDENTS PURSUANT TO ANEXURE-A1 NOTIFICATION. EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.G.RSPL-26053/RTI/12 DATED 9 11/2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE DECISION OF THE PSC DATED 13 8/2012. OP(KAT).No. 349 of 2013 (Z) EXHIHIT P4A TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P4. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE Manjula Chellur, C.J.
& K. Vinod Chandran, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. (KAT) No. 349 OF 201.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of January, 2013 JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur, C.J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant whose reliefs were turned down by Kerala Administrative Tribunal(for short 'KAT').
2. It is not in dispute that the applicant/petitioner herein applied to the post of Sub Inspector of Police(Trainee) in Police (General Executive Branch) by mentioning category number as "316/2007". It is not in dispute that there were two categories; one for direct recruitees and another for promotion by transfer. Category No.317/07 was meant for candidates to be promoted by transfer. The main contention of the petitioner is instead of mentioning category No.317/07 he wrongly entered category No.316/07 and in spite of his representation to consider him as an in-service candidate, it was rejected. Therefore, he had to approach KAT and even before KAT he lost his battle. According to the petitioner before the Tribunal as well as this Court, it was contended that Annexure A6 OP(KAT) No. 349 of 2013 -:2:- Circular came into effect with future date and as on the date of application submitted by the petitioner in 2007, there was no such Circular.
3. Learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission brings to our notice two unreported decisions in W.A. No.348 of 2010 dated 08.03.2010 and W.A. No.676 of 2012 dated 02.04.2012. In W.A. No.348 of 2010 the post in question was Driver Grade II for which applications were called for and categories were 32/07 and 33/07. The petitioner in that case was expected to mention category No.32/07 but instead, he mentioned category No.33/07. As a matter of fact, on the envelope he mentioned the correct category number; but in the application he mentioned wrong category number. Therefore, though he was called for the test, later on Public Service Commission rejected his application on realising the defect in the application. Therefore, he approached the learned Single Judge seeking quashing of Ext.P3 in that appeal. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and later the Division Bench also opined; as it was a defective application, there was OP(KAT) No. 349 of 2013 -:3:- justification on the part of the Commission to reject the defective application and therefore such decision of the Commission neither was ultravires nor unauthorised.
4. In the latter appeal, i.e. W.A. No.676 of 2012 also applicants quoted wrong category number noting as '32' instead of '33' in the respective application. Though they were allowed to write the written examination, after realising the mistake, their applications were rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the applicants came before the Court placing reliance on earlier judgment of the Division Bench and also taking into consideration the facts in the said appeal, the Division Bench rejected the claim of the applicants.
5. The judgment in Shajahan v. Kerala Public Service Commission and another [2011(4) KHC 551.was placed before us, by learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant. As a matter of fact, the earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A. No.348 of 2010 was not even brought to the notice of the Court when the judgment came to be pronounced by later Division Bench. Shajahan (supra), is a case in which the OP(KAT) No. 349 of 2013 -:4:- applicant though mentioned his in-service status quoted the category number wrongly. The Public Service Commission when issuing hall ticket, however, mentioned the category number of 'by transfer appointment'. In this instant case the petitioner contested for the open merit quota and on failing to qualify was before the learned Single Judge claiming to be considered in the in-service quota. The facts are clearly distinguishable.
6. The petitioner also contends that Circular No.13/2009 can only be prospective. In the present case, it is not in dispute that in the notification calling for the applications, clear instructions were given that defective applications would be rejected. Apparently, the petitioner's application was a defective one, if we accept his contention, as the very category or channel which he chose was entirely different from the actual category he intended. This is the stand of the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that till he wrote the examination and results were declared, he did not choose to bring to the notice of the Commission that there is a defect in the application regarding the category number. After realising that he was not successful in OP(KAT) No. 349 of 2013 -:5:- the examination, he submitted a representation to the Commission that his application has to be considered as 'promotion by transfer' category.
7. Apart from defective application, the very exercise adopted by the petitioner/applicant would show, he was actually sitting on the fence till the last minute and after realising the disadvantage, he sought for modification of the category number in his application. Much prior to the submission of application one must decide what exactly he intends to do. Depending upon the number of vacancies and the availability of the candidates it is quite possible what the applicant expects at the beginning of the process; may, turn to be disadvantageous to him once results are announced. At that point of time the applicant is not entitled to change his stand. As a matter of fact, Annexure A6 is the clarification of earlier Circular and it was not for the first time such Circular came to be issued. The Commission has mentioned the difficulties they would face, if the candidates are allowed to change their stand by choosing a different category once the selection process commences. In that view of the matter, as a OP(KAT) No. 349 of 2013 -:6:- caution Annexure A6 Circular clarifying the earlier Circular dated 02.12.2005 came to be issued. In that view of the matter, the stand of the petitioner that Annexure A6 is only prospective is also not available to him. In view of the above discussions, we are of the opinion, none of the grounds raised in the Original Petition persuade us to differ from the opinion of KAT. Accordingly, the Original Petition is dismissed. Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice. K. Vinod Chandran, Judge. ttb/30/01 OP(KAT) No. 349 of 2013 -:7:-