Vasudevan O vs The State Of Kerala Represented By The on 1 December, 2016

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Vasudevan O vs The State Of Kerala Represented By The on 1 December, 2016

The captioned original petition has been filed challenging the order dated 1.12.2016 passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A.(EKM)No.1359 of 2016. The petitioner moved the Tribunal mainly challenging Annexures A4 and A5 and seeking issuance of a direction to the 2nd respondent not to delete his name from the ranked list prepared for the purpose of appointment to the post of Lower Division Typist in various Government departments. He also sought for a direction to the respondents to consider Annexure-A2 certificate produced by him and to retain his name in the ranked list. Shorn off details the relevant facts for the disposal of this original petition are as follows:-

The petitioner is an Ex-serviceman. He responded to a notification dated 29.5.2009 issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission for appointment to the post of Lower Division Typist in various departments. The OMR test was conducted as part of the selection process on 12.1.2011. Thereafter, he was included in Annexure-A1 (in Ext.P1) ranked list at Sl.No.219 which was brought O.P.(KAT)No.60 of 2017 2 into force with effect from 17.5.2012. Admittedly, its validity got expired. It is also the admitted position that during the currency of the said list certain vacancies in the post of Lower Division Typist in certain departments were reported to the Public Service Commission. At the time of consideration to effect advice from the list a re-checking of the applications was conducted. On such detection, it was found that the petitioner had not stated anything regarding his qualification with respect to Computer Word Processing in the application. He was also not possessing the qualification of KGTE Malayalam Typewriting. Thereupon, he was served with a show cause notice as to why his name should not be removed from the ranked list. The petitioner gave a reply pursuant to the receipt of the said show cause notice. Finding the explanation submitted by the petitioner as unacceptable his name was removed from the list. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted representation before the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent rejected the same citing the reasons on the same lines as has been made in Annexure-A4. It is in the said circumstances that he moved the Kerala Administrative Tribunal by filing the aforesaid original application seeking the aforementioned prayers. The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions and the relevant provisions dismissed the original application. The captioned original petition has been filed in the said circumstances.

O.P.(KAT)No.60 of 2017 3

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 and also the learned Government Pleader.

3. The notification concerned was issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission on 29.5.2009. It is the common case that qualifications have been prescribed under the said notification as hereunder:-

"(1) S.S.L.C. or its equivalent qualification;

(2) Lower Grade Certificate in KGTE Malayalam Typewriting; and (3) Lower Grade Certificate in KGTE English Typewriting and Computer Word Processing or its equivalent."

Going by Note 4 to the said notification Ex-servicemen with service as Clerk (General duties), Clerk (Staff duties), Clerk (A.O.C) and Personal Assistants in the Army, Writers in the Navy and Clerks (General duties) in the Air Force who are under the category "Class I" or those who possess 15 years service in the clerical cadre in the Defence Forces would be treated as eligible to apply for the above post and they would be exempted from producing the certificates till the declaration of O.P.(KAT)No.60 of 2017 4 probation. Going by the general conditions in the application itself the factum of possession of requisite qualification has to be specifically mentioned. Therefore, in order to get the benefit of exemption one should claim possession of such certificates to earn eligibility. Thus, going by the said requirement, persons responding to the notification dated 29.5.2009 must specifically mention in the application regarding the possession of qualification of S.S.L.C. or equivalent qualification, possession or otherwise of lower grade certificate in KGTE Malayalam Typewriting and possession or otherwise of lower grade certificate in KGTE English Typewriting, Computer Word Processing certificate or its equivalent. It is also not in dispute that despite such requirement the petitioner herein had failed to make a mention regarding the possession of lower grade certificate in KGTE English Typewriting and certificate revealing qualification of Computer Word Processing. It is a fact that he was not then possessing lower grade certificate in KGTE Malayalam Typewriting. As noticed hereinbefore, prior to the expiry of the rank list, at the time of identifying the persons to be advised against the reported vacancies, a re-checking of the applications was conducted. At that point of time, it was found that the petitioner had not made any mention in the application regarding the possession of lower grade certificate in KGTE English Typewriting and Computer Word Processing. It is not disputed before us that going by the general conditions it was O.P.(KAT)No.60 of 2017 5 mandatory to make mention regarding the possession of such qualifications in the application itself. The factum of non-mentioning of such qualifications in the application is admitted by the petitioner. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the reasons assigned in Annexure A4 for removing the name of the petitioner from the list are not correct. In fact, it was on existing reasons in that regard that his application was found defective and consequently rejected. In the meanwhile, the petitioner attempted to cure the defects by producing Annexure-A2. At the same time, it was found that it is not a curable mistake and in the light of mandatory provisions, in the application itself it ought to have been mentioned. After the removal of his name from the ranked list the petitioner attempted to get a review of the decision and in that regard submitted a representation. The said representation did not find favour with the 2nd respondent and consequently, as per Annexure-A5, the said representation was also rejected. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal would reveal that there was absolutely no case for the petitioner that going by the general conditions he was not under an obligation to make mention regarding the possession of the aforementioned qualifications in the application. In fact, the correctness of the reason stated in Annexures A4 and A5 on the aforesaid lines are not at all disputed by the petitioner. In other words, he got no case that he claimed possession of KGTE English lower O.P.(KAT)No.60 of 2017 6 grade and Computer Word Processing qualification in his application. The reasons assigned by the petitioner in his explanation to the show cause notice as also in the subsequent representation seeking review of the decision in Annexure-A4, was to the effect that he was under a wrong impression that he was eligible to get exemption provided under the notification itself. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the fact that it was nothing but a misconception as it was very specifically mentioned in the notification itself that the exemption was provided thereunder only for the category of Clerks in the defence services. The exemptions provided under the notification going by Notes (2) to (4) under Clause (7) are as hereunder:-

"7. Qualifications:

.............................................

Note: 1. .....................................

2. Malayalam Typewriting lower is not compulsory for the Ex-Servicemen who have completed normal tenure of service for applying to the post of Typist in the Government Service. But if they are selected the above qualification should be acquired before completing probation.

3. Service as Clerk/Writer in the defence forces for not less than 15 years will be deemed as sufficient qualification for the post. If selected they have to pass Malayalam Typewriting Lower before completing probation.

4. Ex-servicemen with service as Clerk (General O.P.(KAT)No.60 of 2017 7 duties) Clerk (Staff duties), Clerk (A.O.C) and Personal Assistants in the Army Writers in the Navy and Clerks (General duties) in the Air Force who were under the Category "Class I" or those who possess 15 years service in the Clerical cadre in the Defence Forces will be treated as eligible to apply for this post."

4. It is evident from the aforequoted Note to the notification that exemption was provided to persons belonged to the category of `Clerk' under the defence services. The petitioner though an Ex- serviceman was only a Mechanic in the Indian Army. He did not have a case that he was a clerk in the Armed Forces. Hence, going by the notes, he could not have claimed any exemption. Even if he is entitled to claim exemption it could not have been a reason for not mentioning the possession of qualifications in the application. Thus, it is evident that the reasons assigned by the petitioner in his explanation to the show cause notice and in the subsequent representation are of no relevance and consequences. Even if he had actually misread the notes therein it could not be taken as a ground for not mentioning the factum of possession of the qualification of lower grade certificate in KGTE English Typewriting and Computer Word Processing in the application. In such circumstances, it is evident that the application of the petitioner was defective and it was citing such reasons that his name was removed from the ranked list. The aforesaid facts were carefully O.P.(KAT)No.60 of 2017 8 considered by the Tribunal and based on such consideration the Tribunal found that there was no illegality or flaw in the decision of the 2nd respondent in removing the petitioner's name from Annexure-A1 ranked list as per Annexure-A4. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal also found no illegality in Annexure-A5. It short, the conclusions and consequential findings of the Tribunal are founded on sustainable grounds.

In the circumstances, we do not find any reason to hold that the order of the Tribunal is illegal warranting interference of this Court in exercise of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In short, there is no merit in this original petition and consequently it is dismissed.

Sd/-

C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge Sd/-

K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH Judge TKS

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court