Research › Browse › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

1997 DIGILAW 151 (KER)

Binimil K. G. v. K. P. S. C.

1997-04-02

B.N.PATNAIK, K.G.BALAKRISHNAN

body1997
JUDGMENT K.G. Balakrishnan, J. 1. Appellant is an Assistant Gr. II working in the Cochin University office at Ernakulam. She wanted to appear for the Departmental Test Examination held in June, 1996. The last date for receipt of the application was 24.4.1996. Appellant remitted a fee of Rs.40/- in Treasury and sent her application by speed post on 22.4.96. She failed to enclose the chalan receipt along with the application and also the photograph duly attested by the Head of office. Coming to know of those two defects, appellant got prepared another application and her photograph was duly attested by the Head of office and along with the chalan receipt a second application was sent on 24.4.96 by courier service but the same was delivered in the office of the PSC only at 10.30. A.M. on 25.4.96. The PSC informed the appellant that her application was rejected for the reason that it was not accompanied by the chalan receipt and that the photograph was not duly attested by the Head of office. Appellant then made enquiries and came to know that her second application was not considered as it was received by the PSC belatedly. Appellant filed O.P. and she got permission to write the examination by virtue of an interim order passed by the learned single Judge in the O.P. and she appeared for the examination. When the O.P. came up for consideration appellant contended that her application was not liable to be rejected. Learned single Judge rejected this contention and held that the order of rejection passed by the PSC was not liable to be interfered with. 2. We heard appellant's counsel and counsel for the PSC Appellant's counsel contended that the notification inviting the application was published in the Gazette but this gazette notification was not published in time and, therefore, the appellant could not get all the details regarding submission of application. It was also contended that the second application submitted by the appellant was accompanied by original chalan receipt and the photograph was duly attested and therefore the PSC should have accepted that application even though it was received in its office on the next day. Counsel for the PSC, however, contended that Ext.P1 rejection order was passed in accordance with rules and that the application submitted by the appellant was received beyond the last date for receipt of application. Counsel for the PSC, however, contended that Ext.P1 rejection order was passed in accordance with rules and that the application submitted by the appellant was received beyond the last date for receipt of application. Our attention was drawn to the two decisions of the Division Bench of this Court reported in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Varghese and others (ILR 1977 (1) Kerala 523 and in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Saroja Nambiar (ILR 1978 (2) Ker. 241). 3. The question to be considered is whether the Public Service Commission was justified in rejecting the application. Admittedly, the application was received subsequent to the last date for receipt of the application. That is a valid ground for rejection. Whether the peculiar circumstances of the case warrant condonation of such delay in submitting the application is a matter to be considered. The Public Service Commission is entrusted with the duty of conducting various departmental examinations and also selection of candidates for appointment to various posts. They have to deal with large number of application and when they call notification inviting application, last date is fixed for receipt of such applications. Due to various reasons the candidates may not be in a position to send the application in time. But such delays are not condoned by the PSC If they show any relaxation in such rules it would cause delay in processing application. Moreover, that would pave way to certain undue favouritism to some candidates. Laxity in one case will leave open the flood gate of requests to condone such irregularities or omissions. The Commission with its heavy workload must strictly adhere to the norms set by it. The Commission has been taking a strict view of these matters and the various decisions on the point also would go to show that delay in submitting application is a valid ground for rejecting the application. So also, any violation of the conditions stipulated in the notification is a ground for rejection of the application. The Courts have always taken the stand that in such matters the extraordinary jurisdiction under Art.226 cannot be extended. 4. Counsel for the first respondent referred to the decision reported in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Saroja Nambiar (1978 (2) ILR Kerala 214). That was a case where applications were invited for recruitment to the cadre of Assistant Surgeon in the Health Services Department. 4. Counsel for the first respondent referred to the decision reported in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Saroja Nambiar (1978 (2) ILR Kerala 214). That was a case where applications were invited for recruitment to the cadre of Assistant Surgeon in the Health Services Department. Petitioner therein submitted application but it was unaccompanied by any document in proof of possession of the qualification prescribed under the notification. Subsequent to the expiry of the time limit fixed for receipt of the application the petitioner forwarded copies of her degree certificate and experience certificate. The PSC rejected her application and the petitioner contended that her application was not liable to be rejected. The Division Bench held thus: "In as much 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." 5. Another decision relied on by the counsel for the PSC is reported in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Varghese and others (1977(1) ILR 523). In that case instead of sending the original chalan the applicant sent only a certificate evidencing the payment of fee. The Court held that it was not in strict compliance with the condition laid down in the notification. The Court held 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 Court held that it was not in strict compliance with the condition laid down in the notification. The Court held 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 in the conduct of the Commission or any of its Officers in the matter of rejecting application or there has been callousness of disregard of its own direction. If the circumstances indicate only a rejection of any 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 to entertain the application". 6. In Rangaswamy v. PSC ( 1982 KLT 574 ) the application to the PSC was to be sent in a form costing Rs.5 and a copy in another form bearing 50 paise stamp. The application was sent through the Head of the Department but the Head of Department forwarded the application bearing 50 paise stamp to the PSC instead of forwarding the application bearing Rs.5 stamp. This resulted in the rejection of application by the PSC Petitioner challenged the rejection. In that case the Division Bench held: "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 rejecting the applications, if the applications are not in strict compliance with the conditions and stipulations contained in the notification". 7. Counsel for the appellant relied on a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Seema Kumari Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. (SC Services Law Judgments 1997 (1) Page 20). That is a case where the Director of Education issued notice for Junior Basic Teachers' Training. 7. Counsel for the appellant relied on a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Seema Kumari Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. (SC Services Law Judgments 1997 (1) Page 20). That is a case where the Director of Education issued notice for Junior Basic Teachers' Training. The criteria for selection were 100 marks based on the percentage of marks obtained in matric or equivalent examinations, 20 marks for candidates belonging to rural areas and 10 marks for candidates belonging to backward panchayat. Similarly, 10 marks were allotted for candidates belonging to IRDP families. Though the appellant claimed to belong to IRDP family, the authorities did not consider her claim and consequently did not award 10 marks as required under the criteria. Appellant filed writ petition challenging this but the High Court declined to interfere as the appellant had not produced the certificate. The Supreme Court directed to produce the certificate and the appellant produced the certificate and the Supreme Court directed that she was entitled to get additional 10 marks. The facts of the above case cannot be applied to the facts in the instant case. Here, the application was rejected for valid grounds as it was not in accordance with the conditions stipulated in the notification. Moreover, the consistent view taken by this Court is that such applications should be rejected and the Court will not normally interfere with such decisions of the Public Service Commission unless strong grounds are made out. We do not propose to take a different view. It has been observed by the Supreme Court in K.V. Pathumma & Ors. v. The Taluk Land Board & Ors. (JT 1977 (2) SC 624): "Interpretation of the law is not a mere mental exercise. Things which have been adjudged long ago should be allowed to rest in peace. A decision rendered long ago can be overruled only if this Court comes to the conclusion that it is manifestly wrong or unfair and not merely on the ground that another interpretation is possible and the court may arrive at a different conclusion". We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. Writ Appeal is without any merit and it is dismissed.