The court emphasized that strict compliance with the rules is necessary, but when a candidate complies with the requirements, the benefit should be availed by the candidate next in the order of merit.

JUDGMENT :

P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 07.10.2020 in W.P.(C) No.35894 of 2019. The appellant was the petitioner in the writ petition. Parties and documents are referred to in this judgment, as they appear in the writ petition.

2. The petitioner participated in the selection conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission (the Commission) for appointment to the post of Computer Assistant Grade II in various Universities in the State. She was assigned Rank No.3 in the supplementary ranked list of candidates belonging to Viswakarma community published on 03.10.2016 pursuant to the said selection. The fourth respondent was the candidate who was assigned rank No.2 in the said supplementary ranked list. The fourth respondent relinquished her claim for appointment on 07.08.2019 in terms of Ext.P3 letter addressed to the Commission. The Commission rejected Ext.P3 relinquishment letter and advised the fourth respondent herself for appointment in a vacancy reported to it. No other advice was issued from the said ranked list thereafter till its expiry, for want of vacancy. The case set out by the petitioner in the writ petition was that insofar as the relinquishment of the claim made by the fourth respondent was in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 18 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure (the Rules), the Commission ought to have advised the petitioner for appointment in the place of the fourth respondent. The relief sought in the writ petition, in the circumstances, was for a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the vacancy in which the fourth respondent was advised for appointment.

3. A counter affidavit was filed in the writ petition on behalf of the Commission contending, inter alia, that the relinquishment letter of the fourth respondent was rejected since the same was not in accordance with Rule18(ii) of the Rules and the petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to any relief.

4. A counter affidavit was filed by the fourth respondent affirming the submission of Ext.P3 relinquishment letter declaring that since she was otherwise employed, she did not join the post pursuant to the advice of the Commission.

5. The learned Single Judge took the view that insofar as the petitioner has not challenged the decision of the Commission in rejecting the relinquishment letter of the fourth respondent, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for, and dismissed the writ petition accordingly. It is aggrieved by the said decision of the learned Single Judge that the petitioner has come up in this appeal.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Commission.

7. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that insofar as the Commission does not have a case that the relinquishment letter submitted by the fourth respondent does not contain the requisite particulars or that it does not contain her signature duly attested by a gazetted officer with his signature, name, designation and office seal or that the relinquishment was not on or before the date of receipt of requisition for advice based on which the fourth respondent was to be advised, it cannot be contended that there is non-compliance of the requirement of Rule18(ii). It was also argued by the learned counsel that if it is found that the Commission was not justified in not acting upon the relinquishment letter submitted by the fourth respondent, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in the writ petition.

8. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the Commission submitted that Ext.P3 relinquishment letter does not indicate that the signature of the fourth respondent contained therein is one affixed by the fourth respondent herself in the presence of a Gazetted officer and therefore, it cannot be said that there is compliance of the requirements contained in Rule 18(ii). The learned Standing Counsel elaborated the said argument poi