Kerala High Court
OP(KAT)/4538/2012 of MOHAMMED JIMSHAD Vs STATE OF KERALA on 31 December 2012
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934 OP(KAT).No. 4538 of 2012 (Z) ---------------------------- OA.2567/2012 of KERALA
BP
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. MANJULA CHELLUR &THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934
OP(KAT).No. 4538 of 2012 (Z)
----------------------------
OA.2567/2012 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER(S)/APPLICANTS 1 :
--------------------------------------------
1. MOHAMMED JIMSHAD M., AGED 29 YEARS S/O. SRI.M.ASSAN, MANNIL HOUSE, PERINTHALMANNA MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 322. S/O. SRI.M.ASSAN, MANNIL HOUSE, PERINTHALMANNA MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 322.
2. DR. FEBIN JAMES, AGED 25 YEARS
S/O. JAMES N.T., NAYATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, 33/4703 MALAPARAMBA, MALAPARAMBA P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 009. MALAPARAMBA, MALAPARAMBA P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 009.
BY ADVS.SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SRI.T.G.SUNIL (PRANAVAM)
SRI.K.R.GANESH
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN OA :
---------------------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001
3. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 69004 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 69004
4. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DISTRICT OFFICE, MALAPPURAM - 679322 DISTRICT OFFICE, MALAPPURAM - 679322
5. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DISTRICT OFFICE, KOZHIKODE - 673502 DISTRICT OFFICE, KOZHIKODE - 673502
BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.I. DAVIS BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(KAT).No. 4538 of 2012 (Z)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
P1 : COPY OF THE OA 2567/2012 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
P2 : COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.21.12.2012 IN OA NO.2567/2012 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM.ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
BP
P.A. TO JDUGE
MANJULA CHELLUR,C.J.
&
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 31[st] day of December, 2012
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
Manjula Chellur,CJ
Two of the petitioners who were unsuccessful before theKerala Administrative Tribunal (for short 'KAT') are before us.It is not in dispute that these two petitioners applied forappointment to the post of Assistant Surgeon in theDepartment of Health Service and the selection process wasentrusted to Public Service Commission ( for short 'PSC').
2. The applications of these two petitioners wererejected by the P.S.C on the ground that the photographsuploaded in both the applications do not indicate the name ofthe candidates as well as the date on which the photographswere taken. Aggrieved by the rejection of the applications,they approached the KAT in O.A.No.2567/2012.
3. We have gone through the reasoning of KAT.
Paragraph 3 actually refers to the details or the deficits in thephotographs sent by these two petitioners to the P.S.C andthe applications were produced by the Commission. It isclearly mentioned that the applications which were submittedonline though contained photographs, their names and date oftaking the photographs are missing from the photographs.For this reason, having regard to instructions at Annexure A1Column No.8, the applications came to be rejected.
4. According to learned counsel for the petitioners,
there must be technical snag in the software of theCommission, therefore when the photographs came to behighlighted the date on the photographs and name of theapplicants are missing. The very purpose of the photographwith the name and the date on which the photograph wastaken is to send the hall ticket generated by computer.According to learned counsel, instructions 'e' and 'f' atAnnexure A6 would apply to the facts of the present case.
5. We have gone through 'e' and 'f ' instructions at Annexure A6 which read as under:- “e) if there is difference in the name of the candidatewritten in the application and that in the documents produced,an Identification Certificate obtained from a Gazetted Officerstating that the name in the application and in the documentsare of the same person, shall be produced.
f) If there is difference in date of birth in the applicationand in the document submitted, you should produce adeclaration(enclosed herewith) in this regard. “
6. Instructions 'e' and 'f' are not with respect to rectification of defects, but clarifications regarding change inname and date of birth. The defect in the present applicationscannot be rectified as indicated at 'e' and 'f' instructions.Even otherwise, in the absence of completing the applicationin accordance with the instructions, the applicant has toblame himself rather than the system. We also note thatthousands of applications were received in the same online procedure. When other applications are in order, we cannotfind fault with the software of the Commission.
We once again opine that the deficit now found was onaccount of the error committed by the applicants rather thanthe software of the Commission. Accordingly this petition isdismissed.
MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE
sj31/12