IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ALEXANDER THOMAS, C. JAYACHANDRAN, JJ.
Padmanabhan T.P., S/o Narayanan – Appellant
Versus
Kerala Public Service Commission – Respondent
OP(KAT) No. 4 of 2023
Decided on : 12-07-2023
Information Technology Act, 2000 - Section 13 - Kerala Administrative Tribunal - Public Service Commission - Appointment - Recruitment by transfer - Whether any interference is warranted with the impugned order of the Tribunal - It was incumbent on the candidates to abide by the instructions strictly, once the same were made known to the candidates with due clarity and without any ambiguity. (Para 8)
Finding of the Court :
Applicant had not chosen to log in to his profile for about one year and two months, which in fact prevented him from getting information as regards submission of confirmation, for which the Public Service Commission cannot be blamed. Secondly, there is adequate compliance of communication through the second mode, that is through the profile created by the applicant. As regards the third mode, we have already found that the burden of the Commission stands discharged upon production of Ext.R1(a) containing the details of the SMS sent to the applicant's registered phone number.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
C. Jayachandran, J.
Ext.P1 order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (Additional Bench, Ernakulam) in O.A.(Ekm)No.587/2021 dated 9.11.2022 is impugned in this Original Petition. The petitioner is the applicant before the Tribunal and the respondents are the Kerala Public Service Commission, its Secretary and the Controller of Examinations. The petitioner, who failed to submit the confirmation for writing the written examination through the one time registration profile on time, sought for a direction permitting the petitioner to make confirmation afresh, so as to download the admission ticket in order to appear for the written test, along with a prayer to condone the delay in submitting the confirmation. The prayer was rejected by the Tribunal as per the impugned order, holding that no indulgence or latitude can be shown to candidates who failed to comply with the conditions in the notification within the time frame stipulated. The Tribunal inter alia relied upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Reshmi.K.R. and others [ILR 2019 (4) Ker. 878 : 2020 (1) KLJ 441].
2. The facts:-
The applicant, who entered service in the Animal Husbandry Department as a part-time Sweeper as per Annexure-A1 order dated 29.7.2017, was promoted as Attendant in the Veterinary Dispensary, Chemperi. While so, on 5.2.2020, the respondent Public Service Commission invited application to the post of Livestock Inspector Gr.II/Poultry Assistant/Milk Recorder/Store Keeper/Enumerator vide Annexure-A3 notification. The method of appointment was recruitment by transfer from departmental candidates. As per Annexure-A4, the applicant submitted his application in the official website of the respondent/Commission. Clause-9 of Annexure-A3 stipulated that candidates must register their 'one time registration' profile through the official website of the Kerala Public Service Commission. Clause 12 of Annexure-A3 is relevant and extracted here below:-
3. Accordingly, the applicant created his one time registration profile and provided his mobile phone number, 9497514711 in Annexure-A4 application, for the purpose of information being sent regarding the confirmation for written test. The applicant is 54 years old and is not proficient in using computer. He was undergoing quarantine due to Covid-19 pandemic from 13.2.2021 to 22.2.2021. On 15.3.2021, the applicant came to know from his friend that the examination is scheduled to 11.5.2021. Although the applicant contacted Akshaya Centre concerned for the purpose of making confirmation, he was told that the period for the same had already expired. The applicant has not received any information in his mobile phone number, contrary to the promise/stipulation made in Annexure-A3 notification. Therefore, he could not download the admission ticket for the
Binimil.K.G. v. PSC ILR 1997 (3) Ker.227 : 1997 (2) KLJ 477
Kerala Public Service Commission v. Reshmi.K.R. and others ILR 2019 (4) Ker. 878 : 2020 (1) KLJ 441
There cannot be any relaxation of the instructions to suit the convenience of the parties in case of defects, if any, committed despite clear instructions and not because of any technical errors, bey....
The Public Service Commission acted within its authority to cancel and reissue notifications for recruitment, and participants cannot challenge the process post-results.
The court confirmed the adequacy of notification procedures for interviews conducted by the public service commission, emphasizing that provisional participation does not confer legal rights.
Trivial errors in examination processes should not lead to disqualification, especially when they do not affect the overall results.
The main legal point established is the requirement to adhere to principles of natural justice, including informing the reasons for rejection and providing the opportunity to rectify defects, in admi....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.