IMPORTANT POINT
Note-2 of Gazette notification dated 2.4.1996 restricting the choice of candidates to one district out of 14 districts of Kerala for filling up 348 posts of Junior Health Inspector, Grade II, in Kerala Health Service is not violative of equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Headnote:(i) Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958-Rule 3-Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure-Rules 22(iii) and 40-KPS Commission inviting applications for filling up 348 Posts of Junior Health Inspector, Grade II, in Kerala Health Service in 14 Districts of the State providing therein restrictions not to apply in more than one District and consequences for its breach would be disqualification permanently or for a particular period-1270 applied, out of whom 436 applied for more than one district-Test held on 8.7.1998 in all 14 districts simultaneously-In the year 1999, candidature of all those 436 persons was rejected either on the ground that they had applied for more than one district or they had given false declaration in the application form that they had not applied to any other district while in fact they had so applied-Writs filed dismissed by Kerala High Court-Appeals to Supreme Court by Special Leave-Whether notification restricting choice of candidates to one district is violative of equality clause enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 in view of case law referred? (No) whether restriction should be read down in its application to the cases like appellants? (No).
       Held : Though a candidate is prohibited from applying to more than one district, he is free to choose any district of his choice and thus the only thing is that the candidate is not entitled to apply for the same post in more than one district at a time. Here, the right of the candidate is not curtailed as he/she is not prevented from choosing the district of his/her choice. At the same time, if every person is permitted to apply for all districts the number of applications received by the Commission will be 14 times the number of applications now being received with the result that the Commission will be doing a futile exercise of selection work, in the other 13 districts, as a candidate can after all accept appointment in only one District. Considering all these aspects the Commission has imposed the restriction on candidates from applying in more than one district in response to one and the same notification. The restriction does not tantamount to the denial of opportunity to a candidate for applying to any post. (Para 13)
       Held further : None of the aforesaid decisions has any application to the facts of the present case as it has been simply pleaded that Note-II of the gazette notification was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Neither before High Court nor before this Court necessary facts showing discrimination have been pleaded inasmuch as there is nothing to show that more meritorious persons have been deprived of employment whereas persons of inferior merit have been selected. Apart from the fact that the necessary facts leading to discrimination have not been pleaded, there is absolutely no material to show that a case of discrimination is made out and accordingly the submission of learned counsel is devoid of any substance. (Para 18)
       Held also as in the present case we have already held that the aforesaid restriction contained in Note-2 is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, therefore, the question of reading down the same does not arise. (Para 19)
       (ii) Service matter-Out of 1270 candidates, 436 persons including appellants in these appeals applied for more than one district contrary to Rule-Whether can be given benefit of doubt being misled by the short notification dated 11.4.1996 referring to earlier Gazette notification dated 2.4.1996? (No)-Whether case of O.N. Omana v. Kerala Public Service Commission be distinguished? (No)-Whether any relief be given on equitable grounds? (No)-Result-Appeals dismissed.
       Held : In view of language in the short notification a candidate was obliged under law to look into the gazette notification dated 2-4-1996, more so when in the application form which was duly filled up by the appellants, it was specifically enumerated that "candidates should read the relevant gazette notification inviting applications before filling up the application form". Thus we find no substance in this submission as well. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that decision of this Court in the case of O.N. Omana v. Kerala Public Service Commission and others (S.L.P. (Civil) No. 12562 of 1999) is quite distinguishable as in that case though there was one notification inviting applications for appointment in several districts and similar restriction was there and in contravention of the same application was filed for appointment in more than one district, but written test was conducted in different districts on different dates and not on one date and the candidates appeared in more than one district. In our view, though in the present case written test was conducted in all the 14 districts on one day but that cannot be a ground for making any distinction. Application of some of the appellants have been rejected on the ground that though they had applied for appointment in more than one district but made a false declaration that they had applied in one district only whereas in other cases they did apply in more than one district and stated in the application that they had so applied. According to the gazette notification both the grounds were independently sufficient for rejection of candidature of a candidate. It appears that the Commission has been liberal in simply rejecting their candidature for the time being and had not debarred them from applying for any public post either for a specified period or permanently inasmuch as for making a false declaration though the appellant were liable to be criminally prosecuted but no such steps have been taken against them. Learned counsel for the appellants lastly submitted that as number of appellants had crossed the upper age limit and number of vacancies are available, without disturbing already selected candidates, the appellants can be considered for selection on the basis of their placement in the merit list. In our view seeing the conduct of appellants in making false declaration and applying in more than one district in contravention of gazette notification, it is not possible to accede to their prayer even on equitable grounds. For the foregoing reasons we are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by a two Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Omana and the High Court was quite justified in upholding order of rejection of candidature of the appellants by the Commission. Accordingly the appeals are dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs. (Paras 21, 22, 23, 24 & 25)

JUDGMENT

B.N. Agrawal, J.-Leave granted.

2. These appeals have been filed against different orders passed by Kerala High Court upholding orders passed by Kerala Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission") rejecting applications filed by the appellants for the posts of Junior Health Inspector, Grade-II, in Kerala Health Service either on the ground that they made false statement in the application form to the effect that they had not applied in more than one district for appointment on the said posts though they had so applied or applied in more than one districts contrary to the instructions in the gazette notification published for appointment on the said posts both of which are independently sufficient grounds for rejection of the applications.

3. The short facts giving rise to these appeals are that the Commission issued a notification, inviting applications for filling up 348 posts of Junior Health Inspector, Grade-II, in 14 districts of the State of Kerala, published in Kerala Gazette on 2-4-1996 and in Part-I, Note-(2), thereof a restriction was put to the effect that applications should not be sent for more than one district in response to the notification, and if, application contrary to said direction is sent and the candidate is selected, his name would be liable to be struck off from rank list and disciplinary action will be taken. Part-II of the said notification contained, apart from application form in which application was required to be filed, general conditions. In column No. 8(b) of the application form, a candidate was required to state Yes or No in answer to the question whether he had applied for the post in any other district pursuant to the said notification. Under general condition 25(b), an application was liable to be summarily rejected if a candidate had applied for more than one district for a post in response to the said notification. Under condition No.29 it was enumerated that if a candidate was, inter alia, found guilty of making any false statement in the application, he was liable to be debarred from applying for the post either permanently or for any particular period and if such a person had already appeared in any written or practical test that would be considered invalid and if any appointment made, a criminal prosecution may be initiated against him and action for removal from service be taken.

4. Thereafter on 11-4-1996 a short notification was issued by the Commission which was published in the newspaper inviting applications for filling up the said posts and last date of receipt of applications was 15-5-1996 and it was enumerated therein that for more details the concerned gazette notification dated 2-4-1996 should be referred. Pursuant to the said notification 1270 persons applied, out of whom 436 persons applied for more than one district. In all 1233 persons appeared in written test conducted on 8-7-1998 in all the 14 district simultaneously. In the year 1999, candidature of all those 436 persons was rejected either on the ground that they had applied for more than one district or they had given false declaration in the application form that they had not applied to any other district while in fact they had so applied.

5. Appellants in civil appeals arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 4955-4966 of 2000 and SLP (C) No. 12254 of 2000 filed separate writ applications challenging the aforesaid order of the rejection of their candidature which were dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court under two separate judgments. Sole appellant in civil appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 11170 of 2000 filed a separate writ application challenging order of rejection of his candidature and the same was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court which order was upheld by a Division Bench. The aforesaid orders passed by the High Court are subject matter of challenge in these cases.

6. When these SLPs were placed for consideration before a two judg

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

2001 Supreme(SC) 857

Cases Referred (5)

Judicial Analysis