Research › Browse › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

1982 DIGILAW 67 (KER)

RANGASWAMY v. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

1982-03-01

G.BALAGANGADHARAN NAIR, V.KHALID

body1982
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is a Sub Inspector in the Armed Reserve in the Kerala Police Service. The first respondent, the Kerala Public Service Commission, called for applications for appointment to the post of Sub Inspectors in the General Executive branch. Since the said post carried brighter prospects, the petitioner applied for the same. The application was to be sent in a form costing Rs.S/-. The petitioner sent the application in the prescribed form along with a copy in another form bearing 50 paise stamp through the 2nd respondent-Inspector-General of Police, Trivandrum, on 2-10-1979. The petitioner felt that since he was a service candidate his application had to be routed through the head of the department. Ext. P1 is a true-copy of the covering letter sent along with the application. On 16-1-1980 the petitioner received Ext. P2 from the 1st respondent intimating him that his application was rejected as the same had been sent in the wrong form. What happened was that the 2nd respondent instead of forwarding the application bearing Rs.S/-stamp to the Public Service Commission forwarded the application bearing 50 paise stamp. The petitioner wrote Ext. P3 letter to the first respondent detailing the circumstances under which the mistake took place. Nothing happened. Hence he has approached this Court for a direction to quash Ext. P2 and for a writ of mandamus to direct the Public Service Commission to permit him to compete in the test and for other consequential reliefs. 2. Along with the Original Petition, the petitioner filed CMP. No. 1245 of 1980 for an interim direction, to direct the first respondent to issue a hall ticket to him and to permit him to take the test on 2-2-1980. This Court gave that direction purely as an interim measure by order dated 28-1-1980, observing that the result of the test would be subject to the result of the O. P. 3. This Court gave that direction purely as an interim measure by order dated 28-1-1980, observing that the result of the test would be subject to the result of the O. P. 3. This O P. came before Narendran J., who felt that the matter had to be referred to a Division Bench when the decision reported in Uma Shanker v. Union of India (A I R.1980 S C. 1457) cited by the petitioner's counsel and the decisions in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Varghese (I L R.1977 (1) Kerala 523) and in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Prasad Chandran (Writ Appeal No. 371 of 1976) cited by the counsel for the first respondent, were brought to his notice. This is how the petition comes up before us. 4. The stand taken by the first respondent-Commission is that it is bound by its Rules of Procedure. The Gazette Notification inviting applications was dated 28-8-1979 and the last date for receipt of applications was 10-10-1979. The Kerala Government Servants Application for Posts (Private Employment & Government Service) Rules, 1958 was amended by the Notification dated 5th July, 1979, published in Kerala Gazette No. 30 dated 24th July, 1979. The amended R.2 enables persons in Government employment to make applications direct to the Public Service Commission. This amendment came prior to the application made by the petitioner. The commission's stand is that it was perfectly justified in rejecting the application since it was not properly stamped. 5. It is not disputed that the petitioner had sent his application with Rs.S/-stamp and another with 50 paise in time through the 2nd respondent, the head of the department. Nor is it disputed that the application that reached the 1st respondent's office was the one bearing 50 paise stamp only From the counter-affidavit filed by the 1st respondent it is seen that the 2nd respondent bad addressed a communication to the former alerting it about the mistake committed by the latter by sending the application with 50 paise stamp only. The question to be decided is whether the commission was justified in declining to consider the application of the petitioner. 6. This Court bad to consider a more or less identical case in the decision reported in I L R.1977 (1) Kerala 523. In that case, instead of sending the original chalan, the applicant before the Commission had sent only the copy of the chalan. 6. This Court bad to consider a more or less identical case in the decision reported in I L R.1977 (1) Kerala 523. In that case, instead of sending the original chalan, the applicant before the Commission had sent only the copy of the chalan. This Court held that it was not in strict compliance with the directions contained in the Notification and upheld the rejection of the application by the Commission and observed thus: "It is not for this Court to go into this question further. If the Public Service Commission has prescribed this as a requirement, non-compliance therewith must result in rejection. The Public Service Commission cannot be expected to investigate further in a case where the application is not in compliance with the requirements notified to find out whether, nevertheless, the applicant should be permitted to sit for the test. It is not fair to interfere with in these matters unless it is shown that there has been mala fides in the conduct of the commission or any of its officers in the matter of rejecting application or there has been callousness or disregard of its own directions. If the circumstances indicate only a rejection of an application for non-compliance with the requirements specified by its own notification merely because this Court feels it is unfortunate that the application happened to be rejected it may not be fair for this Court to direct the Public Service Commission to entertain the application." This decision was followed by another Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us (Balagangadharan Nair J.) was a party, in Writ Appeal No 371 of 1976, reported in 1978 KLN. 305. In that case, the applicant had by oversight or otherwise omitted to fill in column (8) of the Annexure. This Court held repelling the contention that a sympathetic view should be taken, as follows: "Whatever be the reason for the strictness and the rigour of the rules enjoined by the Public Service Commission, the instructions in the Notification and in the application form appear to us to.be clear and categoric that omission to fill up any of the entires in the application form must be visited with the consequence prescribed. In this region, we see no scope for directing the Commission to be more humane or less strict and to interfere on these considerations with the Commission's action in the rejection of the application." 7. Another judgment of this Court reported in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Saroja Nambiar (ILR. 1978 (2) Kerala 241), to which also one of us (Balagangadharan Nair J.) was a party could be usefully referred to. In that case the applicant before the Commission had not forwarded the necessary certificates along with the application. A learned judge of this Court had directed the Commission to interview the applicant, permitting her to produce the certificates subsequently. The Commission challenged this direction in appeal and the challenge was upheld and the Division Bench held: "Inasmuch as the candidate had failed to comply with the conditions stipulated in the Notification regarding production of the documents in proof of possession by her of the prescribed qualifications along with the application submitted by him to the Public Service Commission, the Public Service Commission was acting fully within its rights in rejecting the application, and, no interference was called for with the impugned orders, passed by the Commission. The conditions stipulated by the Public Service Commission in the notification were in no way unreasonable. Such being the case it was fully Within the competence and jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission to determine whether the application submitted by the candidate was a valid one in the sense of its having conformed to the stipulations contained in the notification and to reject the same on its being found that those conditions were not satisfied." 8. With respect, we agree with the proposition laid down in the above decision. The Public Service Commission is bound by the conditions and stipulations contained in the Notification inviting applications. It will not be within the province of this Court to issue directions to the Commission to whittle down the rigour of the conditions and stipulations. The Commission will be within its rights in rejecting the applications, if the applications are not in strict compliance with the conditions and stipulations contained in the Notification. The Commission deals with large number of applications. Its staff has to sort the applications submitted in proper form, process them and take follow-up action. The Commission will be within its rights in rejecting the applications, if the applications are not in strict compliance with the conditions and stipulations contained in the Notification. The Commission deals with large number of applications. Its staff has to sort the applications submitted in proper form, process them and take follow-up action. No discretion is given to the Commission or freedom to the staff to relax the conditions in the notification. Laxity in one case will leave open the flood gate of requests to condone irregularities or omissions. Such cases cannot be decided on sympathies or by extending other extenuating considerations The Commission with its heavy workload, has to adhere strictly to its norms and its working can be streamlined only by strict adherence to the norms set by it. A case here or a case there may invoke sympathy or may deserve sympathy, as in this case. But it is not within the province of this Court to extend any sympathy in such cases. The Public Service Commission is a high constitutional authority. This Court will normally be loathe in interfering with its decisions, unless strong grounds are made out like mala fides etc. 9. The petitioner's case that if he bad applied direct to the Commission, he would have been visited with adverse consequences also is without merit; not that it would have appealed to us to salvage him from bis predicament, for the reason that as early as on 5th July, 1979 the relevant rule was amended, permitting employees in service like the petitioner, to make applications direct to the Commission, with a copy to the bead of the department. When the petitioner made the application, this rule was in vogue. It cannot be pretended that he was not aware of this amended rule. The rejection of the application therefore cannot in any way be faulted 10. Strong reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision reported in AIR. 1980 SC. 1457. A reading of the facts of that case is sufficient to distinguish the case on hand from it. In that case, the petitioner before the Supreme Court was appointed on 12-12-1975. Strong reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision reported in AIR. 1980 SC. 1457. A reading of the facts of that case is sufficient to distinguish the case on hand from it. In that case, the petitioner before the Supreme Court was appointed on 12-12-1975. Long thereafter it was discovered that he bad not actually participated in a sports meet, which was one of the conditions necessary for entitlement to the post In the peculiar circumstances of that case, the Supreme Court observed as follows: "The terms and conditions of service are intended to be construed reasonably, and too technical a view can defeat the essential spirit and intent embodied in them. The intention was to appoint meritorious sportsmen to the posts and that object is served if a person who had qualified and was selected for representing his University in an inter-University Tournament conducted by the Inter-University Sports Board is appointed, notwithstanding that he was actually prevented from participating because of reasons beyond bis control. We have no doubt that on the interpretation which has found favour with us the appellant will be entitled to a certificate of eligibility, a requirement postulated by the terms of his appointment." There, it was the accidental illness of the petitioner that disabled him from participation in the sports meet The facts of that case are wholly dissimilar with the facts of this case. Here, we are dealing with a decision taken by the Commission at the initial stage strictly in conformity with its own procedures. When it finds that the rules of procedure laid down by it have not been complied with, it has to act according to the rules of procedure governing the matter. Ibis is what has been done in this case. 11. The writ petition has therefore to fail and is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their costs. Dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner makes an oral application immediately after the judgment was dictated for special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. We are not satisfied that this case involves any substantial question of law of general importance that needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. Leave refused. Leave refused.