Kerala High Court
Prasanth K vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 4 November, 2014
Author: P.V.Asha
Bench: P.V.Asha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1940
WP(C).No. 32263 of 2017
----------------------
PETITIONER:
-----------
PRASANTH K, AGED 34,
S/O.VIJAYAN K,
PRASANTH NIVAS, PUNNAD P O,
IRITTY, KANNUR- 670703.
BY ADV.SRI.D.AJITHKUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
-----------
1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695004,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. KERALA STATE BEVERAGES
(MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING)
CORPORATION LIMITED,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695010,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3. ANU M M, SUGANDHAGIRI,
CARDAMOM PROJECT,
SUGANDHAGIRI P O, VYTHRY VIA,
WAYANAD - 673576.
R1 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC
R2 BY SRI.NAVEEN.T., SC
R3 BY ADV. SMT.T.MANASY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 21-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
mbr/
WP(C).No. 32263 of 2017 (G)
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
---------------------
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET FOR WRITTEN
EXAMINATION IN THE SAID POST OBTAINED BY THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MARKS SCORED BY THE
PETITIONER IN WRITTEN EXAMINATION PUBLISHED BY
THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION IN ITS WEBSITE.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATE OF THE
PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL BOARD SHOWING
DISABILITY OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST FOR THE PARTIALLY
BLIND.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD 22/2/2013 ISSUED BY
FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SENT BY PETITIONER
UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT REQUIRING
DETAILS OF THE EXHIBIT P4 RANKED LIST DTD 22/2/2013.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DTD 11/3/2013 SENT BY
STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER(EXAMINATION
WING) KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO 10544/2013
DTD 8/4/2014.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF ADDENDUM NOTIFICATION DTD 29/10/2014
ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF INFORMATION FROM STATE PUBLIC
INFORMATION OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER
RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DTD 22/8/2017.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DTD 10/2/2016 SENT BY
3RD RESPONDENT TO THE IST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT CHART OF P.S.C.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4.11.2014 OBTAINED
UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P13A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AE 15/33285/13
DATED 4.11.2014 OBTAINED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION
ACT FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P13B TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.1.2015 OBTAINED UNDER
RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT 13C TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.10.2015 OBTAINED
UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
WP(C).No. 32263 of 2017 (G)
---------------------------
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTARIZED STATEMENT OF
3RD RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
----------------------
EXHIBIT R1A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTIFICATION CERTIFICATE OF
SRI.ANU M.M. WITH ADMITTED SIGNATURE.
EXHIBIT R3A ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY 3RD RESPONDENT
DATED 19.4.2018.
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO JUDGE
mbr/
27.06.2018.
P.V.ASHA J.
-------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.32263 of 2017
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of June, 2018
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is physically disabled candidate who was included in the rank list for appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk in Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation. He got inclusion in the ranked list on the basis of a direction from this Court, at rank no.11A among the partially blind candidates, by way of Ext.P9 Addendum Notification dated 29.10.2014.
2. As can be seen from Ext.P12 appointment chart, 8 vacancies were reported to the Public Service Commission as per order dated 06.01.2016 in Writ Appeal Nos.403, 550 and 628 of 2015. The rank list W.P.(C).No.32263 of 2017 2 expired on 31.12.2016. The rank nos.10 who is the 3 rd respondent along with rank no.11 were advised on 05.01.2017, against the vacancies reported on 06.01.2016. Petitioner's case is that the 3 rd respondent, who is also partially blind, had already submitted his relinquishment as per Ext.P11 letter submitted on 10.02.2016, much before the expiry of the rank list. Petitioner has filed this writ petition alleging that the 1st respondent - Public Service Commission ought to have acted upon the relinquishment of the 3rd respondent in Ext.P11 and that petitioner who was the next candidate included as Rank no.11A should have been advised along with rank no.11, instead of advising the 3rd respondent who had already relinquished his right to advice.
3. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the rank list had already expired on 31.12.2016 and that even though the 3 rd respondent had relinquished his right as per letter W.P.(C).No.32263 of 2017 3 dated 10.02.2016 was received on 15.02.2016 the said application was rejected since his signature in the relinquishment application differed from the signature in the application and Identification Certificate and therefore advice was made on 05.01.2017. According to the respondents 1 and 2 a candidate included in the ranked list can relinquish his right in accordance with Rule 18(ii) of the Rules of Procedure of the Public Service Commission.
4. It is further stated that as per Circular No.06/98 issued by the Commission, the Signature and address of the candidate shall be verified with reference to those in his application, Identification Certificate etc already in the office to see that they are identical and the request is genuine. On verification of the relinquishment letter, it was found that the signature in the relinquishment letter differed from that in Ext.R1(a) Identification Certificate.
W.P.(C).No.32263 of 20174
5. Petitioner has filed a reply affidavit producing Ext.P14 affidavit of the 3 rd respondent executed before a notary public in which he stated that he himself had submitted Ext.P11 relinquishment letter since he is employed as a Lab Assistant in a Higher Secondary School and that he is not interested in advice or appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk in Beverages Corporation.
6. Apart from that the 3rd respondent entered appearance and filed an affidavit stating that he himself had signed the relinquishment letter dated 10.02.2016 addressed to the 1 st respondent which is produced as Ext.P11 in this writ petition and that he is working as Lab Assistant in a Higher Secondary School. He produced Ext.R3(a) affidavit also, stating that he sent the relinquishment letter and that as he is working as a Lab Assistant, he is not interested in the advice or appointment as LD Clerk.
7. I heard the learned Counsel appearing on W.P.(C).No.32263 of 2017 5 both sides.
8. Admittedly the PSC has received the relinquishment letter on 15.02.2016. The reason for rejection is stated to be the difference in the signature in the relinquishment letter. But the respondents 1 and 2 did not inform the 3 rd respondent that they rejected it. They have not also made any enquiry with the 3rd respondent as to the receipt of a relinquishment letter in order to verify its genuineness in case they found difference in the signature. The respondents chose to reject the relinquishment letter only by way of advising him after the expiry of the rank list on 05.01.2017.
9. Rule 18(ii) of the PSC Rules of Procedure provides that any candidate whose name has been included in a ranked list prepared by the Commission may relinquish his/her claim for appointment in writing, giving their full address and signature attested by an officer not below the rank of W.P.(C).No.32263 of 2017 6 Tahasildar under his seal, on or before the last date of receipt of requisition of advice against which he/she is to be advised and the Commission shall thereupon remove his name from the ranked list and advise another candidate according to Rules. The rule also provides that the candidate whose name has been so removed from the ranked list shall be informed of such removal by the Commission. When the rules provide that the candidate shall be informed of the removal from the rank list, on the basis of his relinquishment, the PSC is also bound to inform the candidate the rejection of the application for relinquishment along with its reason, if at all they did not choose to ascertain from him whether he had submitted the relinquishment letter when they found the difference in signature. In case such action was done in time that is between 05.02.2016 and 05.01.2017, before advising the 3rd respondent, one more candidate would have got advice. Though it is W.P.(C).No.32263 of 2017 7 necessary to ensure the genuineness of the application for relinquishment, it is also necessary to ensure that another genuine candidate does not lose his opportunity to get employment.
10. A perusal of all these signatures in the affidavit would show that there is no consistency in the signature of the 3rd respondent. But it is to be noted that he is a partially blind candidate. The signature is likely to differ.
11. In view of the above circumstances, I am of the view that the vacancy against which the 3 rd respondent was advised, ought to have been utilised for advising the petitioner who is the next candidate who is also a physically handicapped candidate. As rank no.11 is already advised as per Ext.P12 order along with 3rd respondent, petitioner is the next candidate to be advised.
Therefore the rejection of Ext.P11 relinquishment letter of the 3rd respondent and the W.P.(C).No.32263 of 2017 8 advice of 3rd respondent, covered by Ext.P12, for appointment as LD Clerk in the Kerala State Beverages Corporation are declared illegal. There shall be a direction to the first respondent to advise the petitioner for appointment as LD Clerk in the Kerala State Beverages Corporation within a period of 'one month' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On receipt of such advice, the 2 nd respondent shall appoint the petitioner without any further delay.
This writ petition is allowed accordingly.
Sd/-
P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.
ww