Judicial intervention in PSC decisions is limited to cases of manifest arbitrariness or unfairness in application process.

1. As the issue involved in both these writ petitions is the same, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed by this common judgment.

2. The petitioner in WP (C) No. 17596/2016 had applied for the post of Draftsman Grade I in the Kerala Water Authority, pursuant to a notification inviting applications that was published by the Kerala Public Service Commission [hereinafter referred to as the 'PSC']. Pursuant to the application submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner is issued with an admission ticket directing him to appear for the written examination on 25/09/2015. Thereafter, the PSC published a short list dated 30/04/2016, wherein, the petitioner's name was included in the supplementary list of Ezhava candidates. The petitioner was thereafter called for a certificate verification on 10/12/2015. It is not in dispute that the petitioner appeared before the authorities for the certificate verification and produced all the relevant documents to prove his qualification. When the final rank list for the post of Draftsman Grade I in the Kerala Water Authority was published on 04/04/2016, the name of the petitioner was excluded from the supplementary list of Ezhava candidates. The petitioner therefore preferred a representation before the PSC requesting for an inclusion of his name in the final rank list. The petitioner was then served with Ext. P7 communication, wherein, he was informed that his application was rejected for the reason that he had omitted to put his signature under the declaration in the identification certificate. In the writ petition, the petitioner impugns Ext. P7 communication dated 15/04/2016, inter alia on the contention that the defect pointed out by the PSC was only a minor one that was curable and did not necessitate a cancellation of the petitioner's candidature in the selection process.

3. In WP (C) No. 20773/2016, the petitioner is a candidate who had applied for the post of Mazdoor (Electricity Worker) in the Kerala State Electricity Board in Malappuram District. Pursuant to the examination, the petitioner was also included in Ext. P2 rank list. Immediately thereafter, however, the petitioner was served with a show - cause notice, wherein, it was indicated that the PSC had taken a decision to remove his name from the rank list. Although the petitioner replied to the show - cause notice, the 2nd respondent issued Ext. P5 communication indicating that the name of the petitioner had been removed form Ext. P2 rank list, since, in the identification submitted by the petitioner before the PSC, the photograph affixed on the certificate did not contain the name of the petitioner and the date of taking of the photograph. In the writ petition, the petitioner impugns Ext. P5 communication inter alia on the ground that the mistake pointed out by the PSC was only a minor one taking into account the fact that the petitioner did not have a pass in Std. X and did not have adequate knowledge in computers. It is stated that the defect in question was only a minor defect that was condonable, and the respondent PSC ought to have condoned the same.

4. Counter - affidavits have been filed by the respondent PSC in both the writ petitions, wherein, the stand taken by the respondent PSC is that the defects in question were not minor defects, and hence, the non - compliance with the mandatory conditions that were stipulated in the notifications issued by the PSC had to result in a rejection of the candidature of the petitioners for the posts in question.

5. I have heard Sri. Kaleeswaram Raj, the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions and also Sri. P.