Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 125 (KER)

SOBHA M. K. v. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

2017-01-16

P.B.SURESH KUMAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : The petitioner had applied for selection to the post of Clerk/Cashier in District Co-operative Banks pursuant to a notification issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission ('the PSC' for short). Ext.P1 is the notification issued by the PSC in this connection. As per the terms of Ext.P1 notification, applications were to be submitted online through the web portal of the PSC, after a one time online registration. The applicants were required to furnish their personal particulars in the one time online registration module. They were also required to upload their photograph after writing their name and the date on which the name is written on it. The petitioner applied for selection after the one time registration as required by the terms of the notification. Though the petitioner was permitted to undertake the written test conducted by the PSC pursuant to her application, her application was rejected later as per Ext.P3 communication stating that the name and date written by the petitioner on the photograph uploaded in the web portal of the PSC are not legible. Ext.P3 is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the only requirement in the notification is that the candidate shall write his name and date on the photograph to be uploaded while making the one time online registration. It is stated that the petitioner has written her name and date on the photograph uploaded and there is no dispute to the said fact. According to the learned counsel, there is no standard prescribed in the notification for the clarity required for the endorsements on the photographs. It is pointed out that in the absence of any specification as to the clarity, the conduct of the PSC in rejecting the application is wholly arbitrary. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC, relying on the decision of this Court in Sasikala v. Kerala Public Service Commission ( 2012 (2) KLT 585 ), contended that the issue is covered against the petitioner by the said decision. 4. I have anxiously considered the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. It is beyond dispute that the requirement in the notification is only that the candidate should write his/her name and date on the photograph to be uploaded. 4. I have anxiously considered the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. It is beyond dispute that the requirement in the notification is only that the candidate should write his/her name and date on the photograph to be uploaded. As such, if the candidate concerned had not written her name and the date, nobody can raise any objection against the decision of the PSC in rejecting the application on that ground. But, the case on hand is different. In this case, the petitioner had written her name and the date on the photograph. The objection is only as to the clarity of the said endorsements. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no specification in the notification as to the clarity of the endorsements to be made on the photograph to be uploaded. True, if the endorsements are not clear, the purpose of the requirement to write the name and date on the photograph will not be served. At the same time, the clarity of the endorsement being a relative fact, I am of the view that lack of clarity cannot be held to be a fatal one warranting rejection of the application. Further, when a provision is made by the PSC for online registration, it is easy to prevent uploading of photographs which do not contain the required endorsements and photographs with illegible endorsements, by making appropriate provision in the web portal. Large number of web portals have such provisions. In other words, fundamentally, it is on account of the defect in the platform provided by the PSC for online registration that the application with illegible endorsements on photographs happened to be registered. The decision of this Court in Sasikala v. Kerala Public Service Commission, has no application to the facts of the present case, for, the same is a case where the candidate concerned did not make any endorsements on the photograph. The petitioner, in the circumstances, is entitled to succeed. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, Ext.P3 communication of the PSC is quashed and the PSC is directed to treat the application preferred by the petitioner as a valid one. The second respondent is directed to permit the petitioner to rectify the defects in the photograph uploaded, if required.