Kerala High Court
Sunil S.S vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 22 December, 2017
Bench: K.Surendra Mohan, Annie John
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANNIE JOHN
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1940
OP(KAT).No. 22 of 2018
----------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 553/2017 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 22-12-2017
PETITIONER/ PETITIONER :
------------------------
SUNIL S.S., AGED 44 YEARS,
S/O. V. SUSEELAN, RESIDING AT SUGANDAM, PUNNACKAMUGAL,
THIRUMALA, ARAMADA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
KERALA-695 032
BY ADVS.SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.)
SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS :
--------------------------
1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
PATTOM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA - 695 004
2. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER,
NEYYATTINKARA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KEERALA - 695 121
R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-04-
2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING :
RKM
OP(KAT).No. 22 of 2018 (Z)
---------------------------
-2-
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1 : COPY OF THE O.A NO 553/2017 DATED 27/03/2017 ALONG WITH ITS
ANNEXURES
EXHIBIT P2 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.03.2017 IN O.A NO.553 OF 2017 OF
HON'BLE KAT
EXHIBIT P3 : COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 22/09/2017 FILED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT IN O.A NO.553 OF 2017
EXHIBIT P4 : COPY OF THE M.A DATED 25/08/2017 ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURES
EXHIBIT P5 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/12/2017 RENDERED IN O.A
NO.553/2017.
EXHIBIT P6 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.768/2015 DATED 17.08.2015 ISSUED BY THE
ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER
EXHIBIT P7 : COPY OF THE INVESTIGATION REPORT DATED 19.10.2015.
EXHIBIT P8 : COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY
DATED 19.01.2018.
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :
------------------------
A1 : COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 26.12.2014 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION
A2 : COPY OF THE SHORT LIST DATED 29.07.2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
A3 : COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT/ PETITIONER
HEREIN.
A4 : COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE DATED 06.08.2015 ISSUED BY THE
CERTIFICATE OF EXPERIENCE FROM SMITH AUTOMOBILES & ENGINEERING
WORKS, NEYYATTINKARA.
A5 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.03.2017 IN O.A.NO.401 OF 2017.
MA1 : COPY OF EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE COUNTERSIGNED ON 16.08.2017.
MA2 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 16.08.2017
BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL
---------------------
TRUE COPY
PA TO JUDGE
RKM
K. SURENDRA MOHAN & ANNIE JOHN, JJ.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
O.P.(KAT) No. 22 of 2018
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this the 13th day of April, 2018
JUDGMENT
Surendra Mohan, J.
The applicant in O.A. No.553/2017 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Trivandrum ('KAT', for short) is before us challenging Ext.P5 order dated 22.12.2017, dismissing the OA.
2. The petitioner, a diploma holder in Automobile Engineering, holder of driving license in motor cycle, heavy goods vehicle and heavy passenger motor vehicle and an alleged experience of one year and four months as mechanic in one Smith Automobiles and Engineering Works, Neyyattinkara, had applied for selection and appointment as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector. The application was submitted pursuant to Annexure-A1 notification dated 26.12.2014 issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission ('PSC', for short). In terms of the notification, the petitioner had to produce a certificate of experience issued by a Government approved and registered Automobile workshop. Accordingly, Annexure-A4 certificate was produced by him. The petitioner was found eligible, shortlisted and was summoned for verification of his certificates. However, it was found that the certificate had not been countersigned in the manner stipulated by the notification Annexure-A1. Therefore, time was granted to the petitioner to rectify the defect.
O.P.(KAT) No. 22 of 20182
3. According to the petitioner, since the Assistant Labour Officer was not willing to countersign the certificate in the manner required, he was not able to comply with the direction. In view of the delay, the petitioner had to approach the Lok Ayuktha, this Court and ultimately the KAT. As per Annexure A5 order, the KAT directed the Assistant Labour Officer to countersign the experience certificate after verifying the documents produced. Thereafter, on 16.08.2017, Annexure-MA-I certificate was issued to the petitioner. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had participated in the interview. However, his name was not included in the rank list published. It was in the said circumstances that, O.A.No.553/2017 was filed by the petitioner.
4. The first respondent contested the application by filing a reply statement. It was pointed out that since the experience certificate was not produced after fulfilling the requirements of Annexure A1 notification, the petitioner's application was rejected on 25.11.2015. The experience certificate, on which reliance is placed by the petitioner was produced only long thereafter on 16.08.2017. Therefore, it was contended that there were no grounds to grant any of the reliefs sought for.
5. The KAT considered the respective contentions, took note of the fact that the petitioner had to approach the KAT O.P.(KAT) No. 22 of 2018 3 as well as this Court and also the Lok Ayuktha for obtaining his certificate, countersigned by the Assistant Labour Officer. However, it was found that the PSC had not done anything illegal. The petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for, it has been found. Challenging the said order of the KAT, this original petition has been filed.
6. According to the learned Senior Counsel Smt. Sumathy Dhandapani, there was no delay or laches on the part of the petitioner in producing the certificate of experience required by Annexure A1. He is a person, who is possessed of all the cretaria of eligibility stipulated by Annexure A1 notification. The only defect pointed out is that the certificate produced by him was not in the prescribed form, and that the same was not countersigned by the Assistant Labour Officer. It is contended that in spite of the best efforts of the petitioner, the Assistant Labour Officer was unwilling to sign the same. The delay in producing the certificate was entirely due to the unreasonable attitude of the Assistant Labour Officer, it is contended. Therefore, considering the fact that the petitioner has satisfied all the eligibility conditions, it is only appropriate that he is also directed to be included in the rank list that has already been published.
O.P.(KAT) No. 22 of 20184
7. Per contra, Adv. P.C.Sasidharan, who appears for the first respondent points out that the notification was issued on 26.12.2015. Though the petitioner responded to the notification and had submitted an application, the certificate of experience produced by him was not in the prescribed proforma, nor was it countersigned by the Assistant Labour Officer, as required. Despite the grant of time to the petitioner to produce a proper certificate, nothing was produced. Therefore, the application submitted by the petitioner was rejected on 25.11.2015. The said order of rejection has not been challenged by the petitioner in these proceedings. Therefore, the said order continues to be in force.
8. After completion of the selection process, a rank list was published on 07.08.2017. There is no challenge against the said rank list also, it is pointed out. The learned counsel points out with reference to Ext.P6 that in the said proceedings of the Assistant Labour Officer dated 17.08.2015, it has been stated that the employer of the petitioner had not produced any records or registers before the said authorities. Though he conducted a personal investigation, he could not come across any document evidencing the fact that the petitioner had worked in the said establishment. He further states that the attendance register produced, appears to be, a subsequent creation. The said order O.P.(KAT) No. 22 of 2018 5 Ext.P6, according to the learned counsel, has not been challenged anywhere by the petitioner.
9. With reference to the present certificate of experience produced, it is contended that apart from the fact that it is highly belated, it does not satisfy the requirements of Annexure-A1 notification, and therefore, it cannot be accepted. The learned counsel places reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Sony [2016 (1) KLT 293] to contend that the candidates are required to apply for the post only after satisfying the requirement of producing the certificate of experience i.e. as per the notification. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for.
10. Heard. The notification Annexure-A1 is dated 26.12.2014. As per the notification, work experience in one reputed (Govt. approved) Automobile Workshop, which undertook repair of light motor vehicles, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger vehicles fitted with petrol and diesel engines is the requirement. The notification stipulated that experience certificate should be furnished in the format given thereunder, as per Note-5. Going by the prescribed form, it has to be specifically stated that the person has got experience in the repair of light motor vehicles, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger O.P.(KAT) No. 22 of 2018 6 vehicles fitted with petrol and diesel engines for the period to be specified. The said certificate has to be countersigned by the Assistant Labour Officer, which is required to certify that the employee had worked in the institution, as evident from the registers which the officer had examined.
11. Annexure MA-I certificate produced by the petitioner does not contain a certification to the effect that the petitioner had any experience in the repair of light motor vehicles, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger vehicles fitted with petrol and diesel engines, which is a requirement as per Annexure-A1. Therefore, even the certificate dated 16.08.2017 does not satisfy the requirement of Annexure A1 notification. The certificate produced earlier evidenced by Annexure A4 though contained a statement to the effect that he had experience in working on light motor vehicles, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger vehicles fitted with petrol and diesel engines the same was issued by the proprietor with no certification by the Assistant Labour Officer, as required by Annexure-A1 notification. Therefore, the certificates produced do not satisfy the requirements of Annexure-A1.
12. Added to the above is the fact that the certificate evidenced herein Annexure MA-1 is dated 16.08.2017, long after the last date stipulated by the notification. We take note of the O.P.(KAT) No. 22 of 2018 7 fact that the petitioner's application was rejected as far back as on 25.11.2015 and that, the said rejection has not been challenged even in the OA that was filed. The rank list was published on 07.08.2017 and has been in operation. We are also conscious of the allegation made by the Assistant Labour Officer in Ext.P6 that, the register on the basis of which experience certificate was sought by the petitioner appeared to be a subsequent creation. In view of all the above facts, we do not find any grounds to accept the claim of the petitioner.
13. The learned counsel for the PSC has placed reliance on the decision in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Sony (supra). After considering a similar claim, in paragraph 15 of the said judgment, it was held as follows :-
15. Paragraph 29 of Part II of the General Conditions stipulates that applications which do not conform to the instructions given by the Commission and the guidelines therein are liable to be rejected. Candidates applying for the post are therefore bound to submit an experience certificate in the prescribed form. It is explicit from a reading of paragraph 29 of the General Conditions that applications which do not conform to the conditions laid down by the Commission are liable to be rejected. The writ petitioners in the instant cases have not produced experience certificates in the form prescribed by the Commission. Their applications were, therefore, liable to be rejected as invalid. The writ petitioners who have not produced experience certificates in the form prescribed by the Commission cannot in our opinion, be heard to contend that notwithstanding O.P.(KAT) No. 22 of 2018 8 the defective experience certificates produced by them, their applications should be entertained.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, we find no grounds to grant any of the reliefs sought for by the petitioner.
Hence this original petition is dismissed.
K. SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE ANNIE JOHN JUDGE RKM