Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1253 (KER)

Shani S. v. VS Kerala Public Service Commission

2024-10-01

HARISANKAR V.MENON

body2024
JUDGMENT : Harisankar V. Menon, J. The petitioner, who unfortunately missed the bus with respect to appointment to the post of Assistant Grade II in the 2nd respondent Corporation, is before this Court challenging Ext.P8 proceeding issued by the 1st respondent. 2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are as under: The 1st respondent-Kerala Public Service Commission (for short 'the Public Service Commission') invited applications for appointment to the post of Assistant Grade II in the 2nd respondent, and the petitioner applied thereunder. Ext.P1 is issued by the 1st respondent Public Service Commission, directing the petitioner to appear for verification of her certificates for shortlisting. It is pointed out by the petitioner in this writ petition that Ext.P1 was served on the petitioner and she appeared in response to that. Ext.P2 is the ranked list prepared after verification of the certificates by the 2nd respondent, wherein the petitioner was figured at Sl.No.31 in the Muslim quota. This was followed by Ext.P3 appointment chart, with respect to those who have been selected for appointment, in which the petitioner was included at Sl. No.14. On the basis of the above, Ext.P4 order dated 24.04.2019 was issued by the 2nd respondent, appointing several persons to the post of Assistant Grade II. In Ext.P4 also, the petitioner finds a place at Sl. No.14. The petitioner points out that she did not hear from the 1st or 2nd respondents subsequent to Ext.P1 and it is only upon making further enquiries in that regard, she came to know about the subsequent developments at Exts.P2 to P4. She also points out that her enquiries revealed that the appointment order at Ext.P4, sent by post, was returned by the postal authorities as seen from Ext.P4(a) with the endorsement “not known, returned to sender”. In such circumstances, though Ext.P5 representation dated 06.09.2019, was submitted to the 1st respondent in the matter, relying upon Ext.P7 circular issued by the Government, by Ext.P8 dated 18.07.2019, the petitioner was informed that her claim cannot be considered, since the advice memo already issued had been cancelled, as she did not report for duty before the 2nd respondent. 3. It is challenging Ext.P8 proceedings issued by the 1st respondent, that the captioned writ petition has been filed by the petitioner herein. 3. It is challenging Ext.P8 proceedings issued by the 1st respondent, that the captioned writ petition has been filed by the petitioner herein. On 08.11.2019, while admitting this writ petition, this Court directed to keep one vacancy of Assistant Grade II in the reservation turn for 'Muslim' as unfilled, taking note of the claim made by the petitioner. 4. A detailed counter affidavit dated 06.06.2020, has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent herein, pointing out that the petitioner is the culprit, insofar as she had given different addresses on different occasions. The averment contained in paragraph No.4 of the counter affidavit is as under: “4. It is submitted that candidates can make any changes in their communication address in their profile at any time without the consent of PSC. The extract of changes made by the petitioner in her profile which was taken from data server of PSC shows the following changes made by her. (i) On 30.04.2012 she entered address as VALIYAVEEDAN, ATTINGAL, TRIVANDRUM – 695103. (ii) On 27.02.2016 she corrected it as KUZHIYIL VEEDU, NEAR AR HOSPITAL, TRIVANDRUM – 695103 (iii) On 26.08.2019 she again corrected it as KUZHIYIL VEEDU, NEAR AR HOSPITAL, KANIYAPURAM PO, 695301.” It is also pointed out in the said counter affidavit that subsequent to the cancellation of the advice memo, as aforementioned, additional 4th respondent has been since appointed in the vacancy. The 2nd and additional 4th respondents have also filed separate counter affidavits. Apart from that, the 3rd respondent has filed a statement pursuant to the directions issued by this Court. 5. I have heard Sri.Babu Joseph Kuruvathazha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent, Sri.T.Naveen, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent and Smt.I.Sheela Devi, learned counsel for the additional 4th respondent. 6. Sri.Babu Joseph Kuruvathazha, learned counsel for the petitioner, points out that the 1st respondent had a duty to send one more notice at least, if the first advice memo was returned by the postal authorities as unserved. In this connection, he relies on Ext.P7 circular dated 10.09.1984, issued by the Government. He also points out that there are other vacancies in the 2nd respondent, which are yet to be filled up, and the case of the petitioner can be considered with reference to the unfilled vacancy at least. 7. In this connection, he relies on Ext.P7 circular dated 10.09.1984, issued by the Government. He also points out that there are other vacancies in the 2nd respondent, which are yet to be filled up, and the case of the petitioner can be considered with reference to the unfilled vacancy at least. 7. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent points out with reference to the averments contained in paragraph No.4 of the counter affidavit, that the petitioner had created the entire confusion insofar as she had been providing different addresses on different occasions. The learned Standing Counsel also points out that the essential difference was with reference to the PIN Code, as the original PIN Code provided was ‘695 103’ whereas, actually the same is ‘695 301’ as is clear from the address of the petitioner given in this writ petition. The learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent points out that though there may be other vacancies to be filled up, there are claimants to the said posts pursuant to the ranked list prepared by the 1st respondent on the basis of subsequent notification, since the advice in favour of the petitioner is already cancelled and the ranked list thereto has also lapsed. 8. I have considered the rival submissions as well as the connected records. 9. The petitioner only points out that she was included in the ranked list as seen from Ext.P2 and it is only because the appointment order at Ext.P4 had not been served properly that she could not join the employment with the 2nd respondent. However, the fact remains that, as pointed out in the counter affidavit, the address given originally to the 1st respondent was a different one. It is only on account of the above that the appointment order/advice memo stood returned by the postal authorities. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, the advice cancellation memo has also been returned by the postal authorities, as evidenced by Annexures R1(b) and R1(c). Similarly, the learned Standing Counsel has also pointed out that the period of the ranked list is already over. In such circumstances, the petitioner may not be justified in contending that she has lost the opportunity on account of the non-service of the appointment order/advice. 10. Similarly, the learned Standing Counsel has also pointed out that the period of the ranked list is already over. In such circumstances, the petitioner may not be justified in contending that she has lost the opportunity on account of the non-service of the appointment order/advice. 10. In this connection, the contention raised by Sri.Babu Joseph Kuruvathazha, with reference to Ext.P7 circular, is to be considered. In the 2nd paragraph of the said circular dated 10.09.1984, it is laid down as under: “2. To avoid such instances in future the Government direct all the Heads of Departments and Appointing Authorities that before the Public Service Commission is addressed for cancellation of advice of a candidate, they should satisfy themselves that the order of appointment has actually been served on the candidate or that it is not reasonably practicable to do so. The action taken in this regard should also be intimated to the Commission while addressing them for cancellation of the advice.” It is true that by the said circular, it is provided that the Public Service Commission has a duty to satisfy that the order of appointment is actually served on the candidate or that it is not reasonably practicable to do so. However, in the case at hand, I am afraid that the petitioner cannot take refuge under Ext.P7 since this is a case where the address given by the petitioner itself was incorrect. Therefore, even if the 1st respondent was to serve a fresh notice in the matter, the 1st respondent would have issued that notice/advice memo at the very same incorrect address, and this would have made no difference to the result. 11. In such circumstances, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on Ext.P7, in my opinion, is not apposite. 12. I also notice that this Court, in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Reshmi K.R. and Others [ 2019(5) KHC 875 ], has categorically laid down that with respect to notifications for appointments by the Public Service Commission, it was the duty of the applicant to submit the application in the correct format. Therefore, going by the principles laid down in the said judgment, the petitioner cannot be said to have filled up the application in the proper format, insofar as an incorrect address was provided in the application. 13. Therefore, going by the principles laid down in the said judgment, the petitioner cannot be said to have filled up the application in the proper format, insofar as an incorrect address was provided in the application. 13. On the whole, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for in this writ petition. Resultantly, this writ petition would stand dismissed. 14. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner may be permitted to make an appropriate application with the Government, pointing out the above aspects and seeking indulgence in the matter. 15. The petitioner would be at liberty to make such an application in the matter to the Government, pointing out the actual facts and figures. If such an application is preferred by the petitioner, the Government may take an appropriate decision in the matter, after hearing the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such an application. Needless to say, while considering such an application to be filed by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent would also be heard in the matter.