Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 481 (KER)

MANOJ P. J. v. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

2017-03-08

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, C.T.RAVIKUMAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J. 1. This Original Petition arises out of the order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench dated 16.2.2016 in O.A. No. 1674 of 2015. The petitioner, a candidate included in Annexure A5 ranked list published by the Kerala Public Service Commission (for brevity "the PSC") for the post of Lower Division Clerk in various Departments in Kozhikode District and Annexure A9 ranked list for the post of Civil Excise Officer in the Excise Department in Kozhikode District, pursuant to Annexures A2 and A5 Gazette notifications dated 31.7.2013 and 31.12.2013 respectively, has filed that O.A. seeking for an order to quash Annexures A15 and A17 communications issued by the PSC dated 23.7.2015 and 28.7.2015 respectively, by which his request for weightage marks as a meritorious sports person was declined. The petitioner has also sought for an order directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to reckon the weightage marks for sports person and accord a suitable place in Annexures A5 and A9 ranked lists; an order to direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to give effect to the profile modified on 24.5.2014 for all future benefits and an order to direct the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Annexure A19 representation. 2. The reliefs sought for in the O.A. were opposed by the PSC by filing Ext.P2 reply. The petitioner has also filed Ext.P3 rejoinder. 3. After considering the rival contentions, the Tribunal by Ext.P4 order dated 16.2.2016 rejected the claim made by the petitioner for weightage marks as a meritorious sports person in relation to Annexures A5 and A9 ranked lists, since it was found that the petitioner made entries in his profile with respect to sports weightage only on 24.5.2014, i.e. only after the last date for receipt of applications prescribed in Annexures A2 and A5 Gazette notifications, i.e. 4.9.2013 and 5.2.2014 respectively. However, in the light of the fact that he has updated his profile as on 24.5.2014, the Tribunal made it clear that, in respect of the applications to which the last date of receipt of application is fixed on any date subsequent to the said date, the PSC will consider the claim for weightage marks in accordance with the relevant norms. As regards non-grant of weightgae marks for the post of Lower Division Clerk in various Departments in Kozhikode District and for the post of Civil Excise Officer in the Excise Department in Kozhikode District, the Tribunal held that the refusal of the PSC to grant weightage marks is justified as it was not claimed before the last date of submitting the applications. The O.A. was accordingly disposed of. 4. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P4 order passed by the Tribunal, to the extent of rejecting the claim made by the petitioner for weightage marks as a meritorious sports person in relation to Annexures A5 and A9 ranked lists, the petitioner is before this Court in this Original Petition. 5. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant, learned Standing Counsel for the PSC representing respondents 1 and 2 and also the learned Government Pleader for the 3rd respondent/State. 6. The fact that the application submitted by the petitioner for recruitment to the posts in question is governed by the General Conditions issued by the PSC is not in dispute. As per Clause 15 of the General Conditions, the candidates are required to acquaint themselves with the instructions given in the notification, General Conditions and website for filling up the application form. They will not get an opportunity to rectify any mistake in the application later. Clause 16 provides further that, claims made subsequent to the application will not be considered under any circumstances and that, proof submitted without proper claim in the application will not be considered. 7. As evident from Annexures A2 and A6 notifications, PSC invited applications through "One Time Registration" facility from qualified candidates for selection to the posts in question and the candidates who have already registered can apply through their profile. The mode of submitting application provided in Annexures A2 and A6 notifications read thus: "Mode of Submitting Application:- Candidates shall register as per "One Time Registration" system on the official website of Kerala Public Service Commission www.keralapsc.gov.in for applying for the post. The candidates who have registered shall apply by logging into their profile using their User-ID and password. The candidates shall click on the "Apply Now" button of the respective posts in the notification link for applying for a post. No application fee is required. The candidates who have registered shall apply by logging into their profile using their User-ID and password. The candidates shall click on the "Apply Now" button of the respective posts in the notification link for applying for a post. No application fee is required. Candidates can view and have a printout of the details in the profile by clicking the registration card, if required. Candidates are responsible for the correctness of the personal information and secrecy of password. Before applying for a post, candidates must ensure correctness of the information in their profile. They must quote the User-ID for further communication with the Commission. Applications once submitted will be received as provisional and particulars shall not be deleted or altered after submission. Application submitted not in accordance with the conditions of the notification will be summarily rejected. Documents to prove qualification, community, age, etc. have to be produced as and when called for." 8. As per the mode of submitting application provided in Annexures A2 and A6 notifications, the candidates shall apply for the respective posts in the notification link by logging into their profile using their User-ID and password. The candidates can view and have a printout of the details in the profile by clicking the registration card, if required. The candidates are responsible for the correctness of the personal information and they must ensure correctness of the information in their profile before applying for a post. After submission of the application, the candidate shall not delete or alter the particulars and an application submitted not in accordance with the conditions of the notification will be summarily rejected. 9. As on the last date for submission of application prescribed in Annexures A2 and A6 notifications, i.e., as on 4.9.2013 and 5.2.2014 respectively, the petitioner has not updated his profile in order to claim weightage marks as a meritorious sports person. Based on Annexure A16 request made by the petitioner claiming weightage marks as a meritorious sports person, the PSC verified the entries in his profile and found that the entries with respect to sports weightage were made in his profile only on 24.5.2014. Accordingly, the request made by the petitioner for weightage marks as a meritorious sports person in respect of Annexures A2 and A6 notifications was turned down vide Annexure A17 communication dated 28.7.2015, reiterating the earlier stand in Annexure A15 communication dated 23.7.2015. 10. Accordingly, the request made by the petitioner for weightage marks as a meritorious sports person in respect of Annexures A2 and A6 notifications was turned down vide Annexure A17 communication dated 28.7.2015, reiterating the earlier stand in Annexure A15 communication dated 23.7.2015. 10. In Binu Kumar vs. Kerla Public Service Commission, 2010 (1) KHC 714, in the context of Clauses 6 and 18 of the General Conditions, a learned Judge of this Court held that, sportsmen who are eligible for weightage shall state the claim in the relevant column of the application form itself and shall produce relevant certificates when required by the Commission. Paras.4 and 5 of the judgment read thus: "4. Ext.P3 is the general conditions of notification which should be complied with by every candidate. Clauses 6 and 18 of Ext.P6 reads as under: 6. Extra marks will be awarded to meritorious Sportsmen who possess the requisite qualifications and are within age, in selections to Class III and Class IV posts as per G.O. (Ms.) No. 21/78/GAD dated 11.1.1978. Accordingly the Sportsmen who are eligible for weightage marks shall state the same in the relevant column in the application and shall produce the relevant certificate when required by the Commission. Candidates shall produce the sports Certificate issued by the authorities mentioned in Para.5 of the above Government Order. As regards the Certificate issued by the Amateur Sports Organisation affiliated to any of the National Sports Association mentioned in Appendix VII of the Kerala Service Rules Vol. 1 should bear the Countersignature of the Secretary, Kerala Sports Council. Certificates without the Countersignature of the Secretary, Kerala Sports Council will not be considered for awarding weightage marks. 18. Claims made subsequent to the application will not be considered under any circumstances. Proof submitted without proper claim in the application also will not be considered. (Emphasis supplied) Therefore, from this, it is obvious that sportsmen who are eligible for weightage shall state the claim in the relevant column of the application form itself and shall produce relevant certificates when required by the Commission. Clause 18 makes it clear that claims made subsequent to the submission of the application will not be considered under any circumstances. As already stated, petitioner has no case of having stated anything in the application about his achievements in sports justifying his claim for weightage. Clause 18 makes it clear that claims made subsequent to the submission of the application will not be considered under any circumstances. As already stated, petitioner has no case of having stated anything in the application about his achievements in sports justifying his claim for weightage. If that be so, admittedly, there is violation of the general conditions of the notification, in which event, subsequent claim made by the petitioner at the time of certificate verification is not liable to be considered in view of Clause 18. 5. Therefore the PSC was only ensuring compliance with the general conditions of notification, and if so, the PSC cannot be faulted for not accepting the subsequent claim made by the petitioner. This very question has been considered by this Court in Kerala Public Service Commission vs. Varghese and Others, ILR 1977 (1) Ker. 523, Kerala Public Service Commission vs. Saroja Nambiar, ILR 1978 (2) Ker. 241 and Binimil K.G. vs. KPSC, ILR 1997 (3) Ker. 227. In these judgments, this Court has upheld the rejection of the applications which were made in violation of the conditions stipulated in the notification and has held that the PSC is equally bound by the conditions and cannot act in violation thereof. In the light of the aforesaid judgments, I cannot find fault with the PSC in not allowing the belated claim of the petitioner for weightage." 11. Rule 15A of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure provides that, the PSC shall have the power to correct any clerical, typographical, arithmetical or other mistake in the ranked lists, advice lists or shortlists etc. or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission at any time either on its own motion or on the application of any of the parties concerned. In Binu Kumar's case (supra) this Court held further that, Rule 15A of the Procedure Rules only enables to correct the mistakes committed by the PSC and does not apply to cases where applicants omit to claim weightage. Para.8 of the judgment reads thus: "8. In support of his plea that minor mistakes should have been allowed to be corrected and the discretionary power should be exercised, counsel made reference to the various judgments. The first judgment cited was Manoj Kumar vs. Kerala Public Service Commission, 1999 (2) KLT 534 . Para.8 of the judgment reads thus: "8. In support of his plea that minor mistakes should have been allowed to be corrected and the discretionary power should be exercised, counsel made reference to the various judgments. The first judgment cited was Manoj Kumar vs. Kerala Public Service Commission, 1999 (2) KLT 534 . That was a case where the PSC on its own, permitted the candidates to cure the defect in the applications made, which when challenged, was upheld by this Court on the ground that PSC was only acting fairly. The second judgment relied on in this behalf is Prasad vs. Kerala Public Service Commission, 2003 (7) SCC 713 where also similar reasoning has been adopted. In this case, the application as such was not defective unlike in the cases dealt with by this Court in the aforesaid two judgments. On the other hand, in this case, petitioner is claiming the benefit of weightage which he did not claim in the application. Therefore, these judgments were rendered in different factual contexts and cannot be of any assistance to the petitioner." 12. In Shameera I. vs. Kerala Public Service Commission, 2016 (5) KHC 897 a Division Bench of this Court reiterated the law laid down in Binu Kumar's case (supra). Para.11 of the said judgment reads thus: "11. In Binukumar vs. K.P.S.C. and Others (relied on by the Tribunal in Ext.P2 Order for dismissing the OA), the factual position was exactly similar. The candidate therein, who had applied for selection to the post of Excise Guard against a vacancy in Palakkad District, had omitted to claim any weightage based on his achievement in Sports. After publication of the rank list, the said petitioner put up a claim that he was entitled to have weightage. But the same was dismissed by the PSC for not having raised any such claim in the application. This made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the writ petition stating that the PSC was having ample power to correct the mistake, invoking the discretion under Rule 15A of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, 1976 (Kerala). But the same was dismissed by the PSC for not having raised any such claim in the application. This made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the writ petition stating that the PSC was having ample power to correct the mistake, invoking the discretion under Rule 15A of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, 1976 (Kerala). After detailed deliberations with reference to the relevant provisions of law and also the judicial precedents, it was held by a learned Judge of this Court that the PSC was having power to correct minor mistakes, but the power conferred under Rule 15A of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, 1976 (Kerala) to correct any clerical, typographical, arithmetical or other mistakes in the rank lists, advice lists or short lists etc or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission at any time either on its own motion or on the application of any of the parties concerned, cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner to award weightage marks for the Sports achievements, which was never claimed in the application. The challenge was repelled and the writ petition was dismissed, which hence has been relied on by the Tribunal." 13. In Para.7 of the rejoinder, the petitioner has admitted the fact that he modified the profile in order to claim weightage marks as a meritorious sports person only on 24.5.2014. This was done only after the last date for receipt of applications prescribed in Annexures A2 and A5 Gazette notifications, i.e. 4.9.2013 and 5.2.2014 respectively. Therefore, the Tribunal cannot be found fault with in rejecting the claim made by the petitioner for weightage marks as a meritorious sports person in relation to Annexures A5 and A9 ranked lists, thereby upholding the stand taken by the PSC in Annexures A15 and A17. However, in the light of the fact that the petitioner has updated his profile as on 24.5.2014, the Tribunal has made it clear that, in respect of the applications to which the last date of receipt of application is fixed on any date subsequent to the said date, the PSC will consider the claim for weightage marks in accordance with the relevant norms. 14. 14. The reasoning of the Tribunal in Ext.P4 order is perfectly legal, which warrants no interference in this Original Petition, in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the result, this Original Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.