IMPORTANT POINT
The applicant is responsible for providing accurate personal information in appointment applications; failure to do so negates claims of non-service of appointment notices.

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. 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.Nav