SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 1512

KERALA HIGH COURT
, J
Jisha v. Kerala Public Service Commission
Writ Petition | 38778/03



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Babu
For the Respondents: Standing Counsel

Judicial flexibility may be exercised in exceptional cases to uphold social justice, especially for underprivileged individuals seeking employment.

Headnote:In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the omission of her name from the rank list for Lower Division Clerks based on non-submission of documents at the PSC office. The Court found the Commission's actions justified but considered the petitioner's circumstances, suggesting that the rigidity of regulations could be relaxed. The Court ultimately directed that the petitioner be included in the select list upon timely submission of documents.

1A rank list of candidates, who were selected for appointment as Lower Division Clerks in respect of Malappuram District, had come to be published on 01-01-2004. By normal standards, the petitioner's name would have found a place therein. But, according to her, the circumstances had conspired against her and she has been denied a chance for appointment altogether. The writ petition has been filed in the aforesaid circumstances requesting that this Court should exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction to set right the omission. The question is how far it may he proper for this Court to prescribe and insist that such reliefs are to be conferred on her.

2The petitioner had passed S.S.L.C and completed her Higher Secondary course. She had responded to the notification and participated in the written test conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission for selection to the post of Lower Division Clerks. The written test was held on 20-09-2003. After such test, on 05-12-2003, the Public Service Commission had notified the list of candidates who were likely to be included in the rank list. They were required to appear in person before the second respondent. The date on which the petitioner was to attend was notified as 17-12-2003. She was to make available the original documents, for verification.

3According to the petitioner, she had appeared . before the second respondent on 17-12-2003. However, at that time, she was not in possession of the original of S.S.L.C. Book and the Certificate of Higher Secondary course, since such documents had been surrendered before the Calicut University, as she was undergoing a course there by private registration. She avers that she had requested for time to produce those documents. But a rude treatment had been received by her from the PSC office stating that. if. it was not produced then and there, her name will be deleted from the list. The petitioner submits that this was highly shocking and depressing. Finding her in such a run down situation, she seems to have been admitted in the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode on 18-12-2003. She had remained there as an inpatient till 30-12-2003. Ext. P2 Medical Certificate dated 31-12-2003 shows this. After reaching home on 30-12-2003, she had obtained all certificates on 31-12-2003. But, a communication from the Public Service Commission that she is 'excluded from the rank list' also was received by her on that date. This is Ext. P3 dated 17-12-2003. Although she went to the PSC Office on 01-01-2004 with the original certificates, she was told that it was not acceptable. Thus, her name was deleted from the rank list. This deletion is the subject of challenge in this writ petition.

4A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Kerala Public Service Commission. It is submitted that fair opportunity had been granted to every candidate and a relaxed standard in respect of the petitioner cannot be given. The Commission, according to them, is not expected to go out of way in such matters, as it may even affect the rights of third parties. According to the Standing Counsel, it is not as if the petitioner had not been given sufficient opportunity for production of the records. As soon as the general notification was published on 05-12-2003, she ought to have got alerted. Sufficient time was there for securing the original certificates up to 17-12-2003, This had not. been done. Again on 17-12-2003 there might have been no instance of any rude behaviour from the Public Service Commission and Ext. P3 would very well indicate that the candidates have been granted one more week's time for making available the documents. According to him, petitioner might have misread Ext. P3. If the petitioner had produced the certificates at least by 31-12-2003, it might have been possible for the Public Service Commission to consider her claims as well, but she had waited till 01-01-2004. On the said day the rank list had been published and it came into operation. If the pe








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top