IMPORTANT POINTS
The writ petitioner had written his date of birth on his photograph submitted along with his application. His case is that, he was not aware of the requirement of furnishing the date on which the photograph was taken, on his photograph. The said contention of the writ petitioner cannot be accepted without a pinch of salt. This is for the reason that, he has no answer as to why he had written a date on his photograph, in the first place. Unless he had been aware that he was expected to put some date on his photograph, he would not have written his date of birth on his photograph.

JUDGMENT :

K. Surendra Mohan, J.

The challenge against rejection of applications by the Kerala Public Service Commission ('PSC' for short) in its recruitment process has been a very frequent phenomenon in this Court. Though instructions are provided to the candidates along with the notifications issued by the PSC regarding the manner in which applications are to be filled up, submitted or uploaded on the computer, candidates often commit mistakes that entail serious consequences including rejection of their candidature causing severe heartburn and despair in the minds of such persons. Such candidates would then approach this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for relief. These cases also relate to such rejection of applications. A Division Bench of this Court noticed that there was some confusion in the matter, in view of the decision in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Roshini (ILR 2016 (1) Ker. 99). In the said case, though the candidates were to have uploaded photographs of the size mentioned in the instructions, they uploaded stamp size photographs. For the said reason, their applications were rejected. The said action was challenged before this Court. The learned Single Judge considered the contentions of the writ petitioner as well as the PSC, found that though the photographs uploaded were not of the specified dimensions, they were sufficient to identify the candidate. Since the purpose of uploading photographs was to identify the candidate, it was found that, there was substantial compliance with the stipulations and therefore the rejection of their candidature was held to be unjustified. Though the judgment of the learned Single Judge was the subject matter of W.A. No. 399 of 2015 at the instance of the PSC, the Division Bench declined to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. However, the said dictum has been found to be in conflict with the decision in Rangaswamy v. KPSC (1982 KLT 574) by the Bench. The Division Bench in its reference order further noticed that the decision in Roshini's case was at variance with the consistent dicta in a number of previous decisions. In view of the confusion noticed, the Division Bench has framed four questions for being decided by a Larger Bench. It is accordingly that, the captioned cases have been posted before us.

2. The questions referred to us by the Division Bench are the following:

(i) Whether the Tribunal could pass orders in deviation of the earlier judgments, only because of Roshni's case;

(ii) whether the observation in Roshni's judgment that there cannot be mechanical rejection of candidature, dilutes the findings in earlier judgments;

(iii) whether the permission granted by Chairman of the PSC to participate in an interview could be construed as holding out a promise that would attract the principle of promissory estoppel;

(iv) whether after the judgments in Rangaswami and in O.P. (KAT).No. 3013 of 2013, holding held that there cannot be any interference with the rejection of an application, interference is possible on the ground of permission granted by the Chairman, relying on Roshni's case.

The issue arising in the Writ Appeal, also relates to rejection of application by the PSC but on some other grounds. The learned Single Judge has allowed the Writ Petition following Roshni's case. Therefore, that has also been posted along with these O.Ps.

3. We have heard Sri. P.C. Sasidharan, the learned Legal Retainer for Kerala Public Service Commission ('PSC' for short), Adv. Kaleeswaram Raj, Adv. K.T. Syam Kumar and Adv. Krishna Menon, the learned Counsel for the party respondents in these cases.

4. The rejection of applications by the Public Service Commission is usually being challenged before this Court on various grounds by the candidates aspiring for appointment to various posts irrespective of the qualifications prescribed or the categories of such posts. Notifications are issued by the Public Service Commission inviting