Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 80 (KER)

C. v. Antony VS Kerala State Electricity Board

2014-01-31

C.K.ABDUL REHIM

body2014
Judgment : 1. The petitioner is a candidate applied for selection to the post of Mazdoor (Electricity Worker) in the 1st respondent Board, through the Public Service Commission (PSC). He was invited for and attended a written test held on 10.12.2011, based on Ext.P2 'Admission Ticket' issued. But the PSC had now issued Ext.P3 notification invalidating candidature of the petitioner stating the reason that, "signed against Register Number of another candidate." It is challenging Ext.P3 and seeking direction for inclusion of the petitioner in the Rank List, this writ petition is filed. 2. According to the petitioner, when he appeared for the written test the Invigilator had shown a Register in which the petitioner was directed to put his signature. Even if any variation had occurred with respect to the space where the petitioner had put his signature, it is not of much consequence or determinative. Rejection of candidature on the basis of such an inconsequential reason, is assailed. 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 3 & 4 the factum of application submitted the petitioner and his attending the 'OMR Test' conducted on 10.12.2011 are conceded. The 'Hall Ticket' was down- loaded from the official website of PSC and the instructions in attending 'OMR Test' was specifically mentioned in the Hall Ticket. The candidates were instructed to produce photo affixed identity proofs in original and also a self attested copy of such proof of identity. The Hall Ticket also specified about the category of identity proofs which will be accepted. Instruction was to enter the 'Register Number' on the copy of the identity proof. It was specified that the candidate should occupy the seat allotted, half an hour prior to commencement of the examination, for the purpose of verification of their Admission Ticket and identity. It was also instructed that the candidates on occupying their seats should sign the 'Attendance Register' before being supplied with the question booklet. According to respondents 3 & 4, "from the records available with the Commission it is clear that the petitioner was absent for attending the OMR test." In support of such a contention the respondents have produced Ext.R3(b) which is the copy of the 'Attendance Register' pertaining to the centre where the examination was conducted. According to respondents 3 & 4, "from the records available with the Commission it is clear that the petitioner was absent for attending the OMR test." In support of such a contention the respondents have produced Ext.R3(b) which is the copy of the 'Attendance Register' pertaining to the centre where the examination was conducted. In the counter affidavit of respondents 3 & 4 it is further stated that, "from the materials available with the Commission it is clear that the petitioner has not attended the examination". The averments are to the effect that, since the records available with the Commission specifically makes it clear that the petitioner was absent, the invalidation of the candidature of the petitioner is in order. The counter affidavit further says that, "an answer script of candidate who had not attended the examination as per records cannot be compelled to be valued by the Commission." 4. On a perusal of Ext.R3(b) it is evident that Register No.108335 is Sri.Antony C.V., who is the petitioner. Register No.108336 and 108337 are Sri.Antony M.P. and Sri.Antony T.J., respectively. Specific case of the petitioner is that he happened to put the signature in the 'Attendance Register' mistakenly against the column noted for Register No. 108337 allotted to Sri.Antony T.J. This version is evidently correct as mentioned in Ext.P3 notification issued by the Commission in which it is mentioned that the answer script of the petitioner was invalidated for the reason that he had signed against the Register Number of another candidate. Further, on a comparison of the signature of the petitioner in the writ petition with the signature contained in Ext.R3(b), the above fact is proved. But the stand taken by the Commission in the counter affidavit to the effect that, from the materials available with the Commission it is clear that the petitioner has not attended the examination, is absolutely untrue. This is because of the fact that the Commission itself had conceded the fact that the petitioner had attended the OMR test. Proof of identity of the petitioner was available with the Commission. It is also evident from Ext.R3(a) copy of list of seating arrangements that candidate with Register No. 108337 had attended the examination. Copy of proof of identity which is retained should have contained the 'Register Number' of the petitioner. The OMR answer sheet also could have been identified as written by the petitioner. It is also evident from Ext.R3(a) copy of list of seating arrangements that candidate with Register No. 108337 had attended the examination. Copy of proof of identity which is retained should have contained the 'Register Number' of the petitioner. The OMR answer sheet also could have been identified as written by the petitioner. Therefore it is clear that from the available records the Commission was convinced that the petitioner had attended the OMR test. As mentioned in Ext.P3, invalidation of the candidature was only for the reason that the petitioner had put his signature in the Attendance Register against the name of another candidate. Any further improvement of the case attempted through the counter affidavit filed by the PSC is to be rejected. 5. Question remaining for consideration is as to whether the rejection of candidature on the basis that the petitioner had put his signature in the 'Attendance Register' in a wrong place is sustainable or not. Learned standing counsel for PSC contended that any failure or variation in strict compliance of all the instructions and directions should be viewed seriously and the candidature is liable to be invalidated. He further contended that the question whether such non-compliance is material or not, cannot be evaluated by this court to direct acceptance of the candidature. In support of such proposition he had relied on a decision of this court in Neena V. Public service Commission ( 2010 (1) KLT 258 ). It is a case where there occurred a mistake in mentioning the 'category code' in the application form. This court held that the mistake in mentioning the 'category code' by the applicant in the application form is fatal and merely because a Hall Ticket was issued it cannot be said that PSC is bound by it and cannot at a later stage reject the application. While deciding the case the learned Judge has placed reliance on another Division Bench decision of this court in Binimil K.G. V. K.P.S.C. (1997 (1) KLT SN 66). It is a case where this court observed that, delay in submitting application after the cut-off date cannot be permitted. While deciding the case the learned Judge has placed reliance on another Division Bench decision of this court in Binimil K.G. V. K.P.S.C. (1997 (1) KLT SN 66). It is a case where this court observed that, delay in submitting application after the cut-off date cannot be permitted. It was observed that the PSC has to deal with a large number of applications and when they notify the last date for receipt of such applications, if the PSC had shown any realixation it would cause delay in processing the applications and further it would pave way to favouritism for some candidates. While deciding Neena's case (supra) the learned Judge observed that there is no specific provision for allowing a candidate to correct an entry in the 'category code' eventhough the application is for the same post. 6. While appreciating legal position remaining settled through precedents cited above, this court takes note of the fact that, one of the above quoted cases is concerned with a defective application and another is a case of receipt of belated application. But on the facts of the case at hand it is admitted that the application was in order and the candidate had appeared for the OMR test. It is also evident that the candidate had submitted identity proof and answered the OMR sheet. Specific statement contained in the counter affidavit is that, an answer script of the candidate who had attended the examination as per records (emphasis given) cannot be compelled to be valued by the Commission. Therefore it is clear that the Commission was sure about participation of the candidate in the OMR test and answer script was available with the Commission. Question is as to whether putting of signature in the 'Attendance Register' mistakenly against the name of another candidate, is fatal in any manner. Test to be applied, according to this court, is as to whether the above mistake will in any manner affect the application or qualification of the candidate or whether such mistake committed will materially invalidate attendance of the candidate in the examination or whether it will affect in identifying the answer sheet submitted by him (OMR sheet). It is to be noted that the Invigilator is partly responsible for the mistake and the petitioner alone cannot be blamed for the same. It is to be noted that the Invigilator is partly responsible for the mistake and the petitioner alone cannot be blamed for the same. When the Commission is perfectly aware that the candidate had appeared in the examination with his proper identity and that he had answered the OMR test, the rejection of the candidature on the flimsy ground that he has mistakenly put his signature in the 'Attendance Register' in a wrong place, is not at all fatal as it will not affect eligibility of the candidate in any manner. At the most it can only be pointed out as a mistake occurred in strict compliance of the instructions. But it will not in any manner affect the eligibility of the candidate or it will not prevent the Commission from properly evaluating his eligibility. 7. Therefore this court is of the considered opinion that the rejection of candidature of the petitioner for the reason that he had signed in the Attendance Register against the name of another candidate, cannot be sustained. Resultantly the writ petition is allowed and Ext.P3 to the extent it is concerned with the petitioner is hereby quashed. 8. It is noticed that the petitioner was allowed to participate in the interview by virtue of an interim order issued by this court on 27.05.2013. Therefore, respondents 3 & 4 are directed to include the name of the petitioner in the Rank List prepared, in the appropriate place in accordance with the marks obtained by him in the written test and interview. 9. Needful steps in this regard shall be taken at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.