Kerala High Court
Kerala Public Service Commission vs Sajidha S on 23 February, 2017
Author: V Shircy
Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon, V Shircy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017/5TH ASWINA, 1939
OP(KAT).No. 242 of 2017 ()
------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA(EKM) 395/2017 of KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 23.02.2017
PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS:
--------------------------
1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM PALACE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004, KERALA.
2. SECRETARY,
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
PATTOM PALACE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 004.
3. DISTRICT OFFICER,
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE,
PALAKKAD, KERALA-678 001.
4. DISTRICT OFFICER,
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE,
DEVALOKAM, MUTTAMBALAM P.O., KOTTAYAM, KERALA-686 004.
BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
RESPONDENT(S)/APPLICANT:
------------------------
SAJIDHA S.,
D/O.SIDDIQUE, AGED 25 YEARS,
RESIDING AT ZEENATH MANZIL,
KANGARAPPADY, VADACODE P.O.,
ERNAKULAM, KERALA-682 021,
MOBILE-6809514337.
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 27-09-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
DG
OP(KAT).No. 242 of 2017 ()
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.(EKM)NO.395 OF 2017 WITH
ANNEXURES.
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA(EKM) 395/2017 DATED
23-2-2017.
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE C-DAC.
EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICIAL NOTIFICATION OF INTERVIEW
PROGRAMME PUBLISHED IN THE WEBSITE OF THE COMMISSION.
EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE INTERVIEW PROGRAMME PUBLISHED IN THE
PSC BULLETIN.
EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEMS PUBLISHED IN VARIOUS NEWS
PAPERS.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS - NIL
TRUE COPY
P. A TO JUDGE
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON &
SHIRCY V.,JJ.
-----------------------------------------------------------
O.P(KAT).No.242 of 2017
----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of September, 2017
J U D G M E N T
P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J.
The direction given by the Tribunal as per Ext.P2 order allowing the Original Application just within 'four days' of filing the same, holding that no reply statement was filed by the Public Service Commission (PSC) and simply accepting the version of the applicant that she was never given any intimation as to the date of interview (in turn denying her chance) are sought to be intercepted in this Original Petition filed by the PSC.
2. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 06.07.2017, a detailed order was passed while admitting the case and ordering urgent notice by speed post to the respondent. An interim order of stay for a period of one month was granted which was extended on 03.08.2017 and thereafter on 31.08.2017. Despite completion of service of notice, the respondent did not choose to appear when this matter was posted on 31.08.2017. The position was noted on the last occasion, on 19.09.2017 as well as it continues even today, as O.P(KAT).242/17 2 there is no representation for the respondent.
3. The learned standing counsel for the PSC points out that the notification issued by the PSC was for selection to the posts of Junior Health Inspector Grade-II in the Health Service Department of the State in various districts and the respondent was an applicant for Palakkad District. Pursuant to the written test, a short list was published on 15.06.2016, enlisting as many as 141 persons including the respondent. Thereafter, interview was scheduled to be conducted on 24.11.2016, 25.11.2016, 30.11.2016 and 01.12.2016 and intimation was given to the respondent as well vide 'SMS' served through her mobile number 9288171619 (given by the respondent herself). Over and above this, intimation was uploaded in the 'profile' of the respondent as well, who was to download the same, to get the relevant memo for participating in the interview, which was not done by her.
4. Proceedings were finalised accordingly and the respondent did not find place in the selection as she did not appear for the interview. It was thereafter that she approached the Tribunal contending that she was not intimated about the O.P(KAT).242/17 3 date of interview and therefore the interference of the Tribunal was sought for, with the following prayers:
"(i) An order directing the 2nd respondent to constitute an interview board and to interview the applicant for the post of Junior Health Inspector Gr.II in Palakkad District.
Alternatively to direct the 2nd respondent to permit the applicant to participate in the interview for the post of Junior Health Inspector to be conducted at Kottayam in the office of the fourth respondent shortly.
(ii) A direction to the 2nd respondent to include the applicant in the ranked list for the post of Junior Health Inspector in Palakkad District at the appropriate place after conducting her interview.
(iii) To grant cost."
5. When the matter came up for admission, a submission was made by the applicant that interview was going on in Kottayam District and that direction might be given to the PSC to interview her as well; which was granted by the Tribunal. But by the time the order was passed, the interview was already over and in such circumstances, the matter was brought up for further consideration before the Tribunal saying that the O.P(KAT).242/17 4 applicant was not interviewed at Kottayam. This made the Tribunal to pass Ext.P2 order allowing the Original Application, holding that the PSC had not filed any reply statement, in turn directing the PSC to conduct a separate interview for the applicant, which according to the petitioner is contrary to the actual facts and figures and not sustainable in law.
6. Learned standing counsel for the PSC makes a reference to the contents of the documents produced along with the Original Petition, particularly as to the factum of serving intimation through 'SMS' in the mobile phone number of the respondent. When the matter came up for admission on 06.07.2017, the factual position as above was taken note of by this Court, leading to the following order:
"The learned Standing Counsel for the PSC/petitioners submits that the OA filed by the respondent/applicant on 17.02.2017 has been quite summarily allowed by the Tribunal, observing in paragraph 3 that of Ext.P2 order passed on 23.02.2017, ie within four days that the PSC has not filed any reply statement in the matter and that no serious dispute was raised with regard to the non- receipt of intimation as to the date of interview by the applicant for the post of Junior Health Inspector O.P(KAT).242/17 5 Grade-II in Palakkad District.
2. The learned Standing Counsel submits with reference to the specific averment in paragraph 6(b) of Ext.P1 OA raised by the applicant that her case is that she had never received any intimation, either by SMS or by post, as to the date of interview held on 26.11.2016 onwards.
This is sought to be rebutted by the PSC by producing Ext.P3 additional document, which is sought to be accepted by filing I.A. No.1190 of 2017. On going through the contents of the said document, it is seen that, intimation was given to the applicant to log in the website of the PSC for details as to the interview, vide communication sent on 09.11.2016 by way of SMS in the Mobile No.919288171619 furnished by the applicant and the said message was delivered to her on the same date. With reference to the said aspect, the learned Standing Counsel submits that a misrepresentation was made by the applicant and hence the challenge against the direction to have the applicant interviewed by the PSC vide Ext.P2.
Admit.
Issue urgent notice by Speed Post to the respondent, returnable within two weeks.
There will be an interim order as prayed for, for a period of one month."
7. Despite completion of service of notice, this assertion O.P(KAT).242/17 6 made by the petitioner PSC, as to sending of intimation by way of 'SMS' in the mobile number of the respondent is not rebutted by the respondent/applicant and she has never chosen to turn up before this Court. This being the position, the version of the respondent, as given in the Original Application that she was never given any information as to the interview either by 'SMS' or otherwise, can only be a mis-representation. In so far as the specific pleading raised by the PSC stand uncontroverted and since we find force in the said submission based on the materials produced before this Court as to the service of memo by way of 'SMS', besides Ext.P5 PSC bulletin and Ext.P6 paper publication, the grievance projected by the respondent in the Original Application was quite unfounded. It is also a fact that since the matter was finalised by the Tribunal within four days of filing the Original Application, the PSC did not get sufficient opportunity to bring all these facts to the notice of the Tribunal. We find that the issue stands squirely covered against the respondent in view of a similar finding rendered by a Division Bench of this Court as per the judgment dated 25.11.2011 in W.A.No.1782 of 2011, a copy of which is placed for perusal before this Court. For the O.P(KAT).242/17 7 aforesaid reasons, we find that Ext.P2 verdict passed by the Tribunal is no more liable to be sustained under any circumstances. Accordingly, Ext.P2 is set aside.
Original Petition filed by the PSC stands allowed. No costs.
Sd/-
(P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE) Sd/-
(SHIRCY V., JUDGE) TRUE COPY P. A TO JUDGE DG