Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN TUESDAY,THE11H DAY OF FEBRUARY201422ND MAGHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 2912 of 2014 (L) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SALAHUDHEEN V.J., KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE,(VELIYATH), NETOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 040. BY ADVS.SRI.S.K.BALACHANDRAN SRI.P.CHARLEY SIMON SMT.N.D.DEEPA RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESSENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1102-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Msd. WP(C).No. 2912 of 2014 (L) -------------------------------------- APPENDIX ---------------- PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: --------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN GAZETTE DATED1506-12 IN CATEGORY NO.288/12. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE DATED2911-2011. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF VERIFICATION CERTIFICATE DATED1712-2012. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED2112-2013, IN MATHRUBHOOMI TOZHIL VARTHA. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED2112-2012. EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED0401-2014. EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE DATED0401-2014. EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF REPLY LETTER DATED2001-2014. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: ----------------------------------------- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE. Msd. K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
===================== W.P.(C) No. 2912 of 2014 ====================== Dated this the 11th day of February, 2014
JUDGMENT
The petitioner seeks to be called for an interview for appointment to the post of Marketing Officer in the MILMA, the selection to which was called for by the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC), by Ext. P1 notification. The petitioner contends that, even as per Ext. P1 notification the certificates for eligibility were to be produced only on the same being called for and the petitioner being qualified to apply for the post, had made an application as directed by the Kerala Public Service Commission. Subsequently, his credentials were verified as per Ext. P3 and while he was waiting for the call letter, he also received an SMS intimating that, his application had been rejected. He however, did not challenge the same since it was his bonafide belief that, his application was W.P.(C) No. 2912 of 2014 2 rejected on some valid grounds.
2. Subsequently, he came to know by Ext. P2 that, though appointments were to be made to three posts and 126 persons had responded, only 6 remained in the list. Hence immediately the petitioner approached the Kerala Public Service Commission with Exts. P5 and P6 representations, which were replied to by Ext. P8. The petitioner challenged Ext. P8 on the ground that, he had not received a memo as has been indicated in Ext. P8 and that he was ready with the experience certificate, Ext. P2 which could have been produced on the petitioner being called upon, so to do. The petitioner prays that, he may be permitted to appear for the interview. The learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in W.P.(C) No. 1585 of 2011 which according to him, in a similar circumstance, directed that, the rejection of the application shall be made only at the stage of interview.
3. The learned counsel for the Kerala Public W.P.(C) No. 2912 of 2014 3 Service Commission however, contends that, the scrutiny of applications were posted to 07.12.2012 on which date many of the applicants had not produced the experience certificate. Hence, though the educational qualifications were verified with reference to the certificates produced, candidates who had not produced the experience certificate, were granted further time for production of the same. In fact, the candidates ought to have produced such certificate by themselves and not waited for a memo from the Kerala Public Service Commission. The petitioner also does not have a case that, he had at any time produced the experience certificate subsequent to 07.12.2012.
4. Subsequently as an abundant caution, on 15.4.2013, the Public Service Commission had also issued independent memos to the candidates for production of the certificates. That according to the Kerala Public Service Commission was not responded to by the petitioner. The petitioner however, asserts that he has not received such a W.P.(C) No. 2912 of 2014 4 memo. However, it is evident that, the rejection of the application was intimated to the petitioner by SMS, which is admitted to have been received. In the circumstance, this Court is not convinced that, the petitioner having not produced the experience certificate in time ie., on 7.12.2012, and thereafter in the extended time granted, is entitled to be called for the interview. The receipt or otherwise of the memo is irrelevant insofar as the petitioner admittedly was called upon to produce the certificates and he chose to produce only that of the educational qualification and not of the experience.
5. The reliance placed on the decision cited is not applicable to the facts of this case. Therein selection was to the post of General Manager in a District Co-operative Bank and the experience mandated was merely in the managerial / supervisory cadre in a public limited company; which the petitioner therein had. While holding that definitely the rank list can be prepared based on the W.P.(C) No. 2912 of 2014 5 relevant experience in the field and also looking at the suitability; this Court held that the application cannot be rejected at the outset. In the said case it is also to be noticed that the application was provisionally accepted by the Commission and later rejected on the orders of the Secretary. In the instant case application was rejected for not having produced the experience certificate.
6. One other submission made by the Public Service Commission with respect to the eligibility of the petitioner, to apply for the post, is based on the experience certificate produced along with Writ Petition. In fact, Ext. P1 notification indicates that the three years experience mandated is in the marketing cadre of an establishment dealing with dairy / food products / FMCG (Fast Moving Consumer Goods). The petitioner admittedly has experience in the marketing of electronic items. According to the Kerala Public Service Commission such experience is not entitled to be considered for appointment in MILMA, which W.P.(C) No. 2912 of 2014 6 deals with marketing of dairy products. By including Fast Moving Consumer Goods, what was intended to be conveyed is consumer goods similar to dairy and food products and that which are fast moving, indicating those products which have minimal shelf life and are not durable. In any event, a consideration of that contention would not be relevant at this stage, since this Court has already found that the petitioner is not entitled to equitable consideration for reason of the default committed by himself and the Writ Petition hence is dismissed in limine. Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB