Kerala High Court
Anil Kumar T.V vs The Kerala Public Service Commission on 6 February, 2009
Author: T.R.Ramachandran Nair
Bench: T.R.Ramachandran Nair
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 31796 of 2008(I)
1. ANIL KUMAR T.V
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
... Respondent
2. THE CHAIRMAN
3. THE DISTRICT OFFICER
For Petitioner :SRI.M.SASINDRAN
For Respondent :SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :06/02/2009
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No. 31796 of 2008-I
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 5th day of February, 2009.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was an applicant to the post of Electricity Worker (Mazdoor) pursuant to the notification issued by the Public Service Commission. He was allotted register No.B-103014 as evidenced by the hall ticket, Ext.P1. During the written examination, according to the petitioner, he was directed to sit in the place allotted for register No.B- 103041. The petitioner contends that the mistake was committed on account of the wrong instructions given by the invigilator and hence the mistake occurred in the counterfoil of the admission ticket. He wrote the examination stating his roll number as 103041 as instructed by the invigilator. In the short list published by the Public Service Commission, roll number 103041 was included and roll number 103014 was omitted. The other person who was assigned roll number 103041 did not appear for the examination also. The petitioner, faced with the said situation, filed Ext.P2 representation stating all these facts and for inclusion of his candidature in the short list. The petitioner has also pointed out that he had studied only upto 7th standard and the correction in the hall ticket was made WPC 31796/2008 2 as per the instruction by the invigilator on the basis of the number written in the desk without verifying the photograph and the signature. The petitioner had also appeared for the interview, cycle test and physical verification on 15.12.2007.
2. Since the name of the petitioner was not included in the short list, he filed Writ Petition No.1206/2008 before this court seeking for a direction to the respondents to publish the results of the petitioner also. Therein, the Public Service Commission admitted the participation of the petitioner in the written test. Ext.P4 is the judgment rendered therein. This court, after considering the matter in detail, in para 4 of the judgment, directed the Public Service Commission to take steps to conduct an enquiry with the participation of the person who was allotted register number 103041. Finally, it was held in the following terms:
"The correctness of the signature put by the petitioner at the time of examination may also be verified and if it is found that what happened was an inadvertent error, then the Commission may take appropriate action to see that the petitioner's participation in the written test is not invalidated for a fault which cannot be attributed to him."
Accordingly, the enquiry was conducted by the Additional Secretary, Examination Wing of the Public Service Commission. The petitioner and the person who was allotted register No.103041 also appeared before the Commission. The said person has given a statement as Ext.P8 to the effect WPC 31796/2008 3 that he did not appear for the examination. The petitioner's signature was also verified and again he submitted Ext.P9 representation seeking for inclusion of his name in the rank list. But, finally by Ext.P10 that was rejected and challenging the same, this writ petition is filed.
3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the stand taken is that the roll number allotted to the petitioner was 103014 and the petitioner had appeared for the test against roll number 103041 which was allotted to another candidate. It is pointed out that going by the instructions issued by the Public Service Commission for the information of the candidates, there is no escape from the consequences and the results can only be rejected. The decisions of the Apex Court in Y.C. Shivakumar and others v. B.M. Vijaya Shankar and others {(1992) 2 CCC 207}, T. Jayakumar v. A. Gopu and another {(2008) 9 SCC 403) and that of a Division Bench of this court in Rangaswamy v. K.P.S.C. (1982) KLT 574) have been relied upon, by the respondents.
4. In the counter affidavit, it is also explained that in compliance with the directions issued in the earlier judgment, the personal hearing of the petitioner (Reg.No.103014) and Shri Ashith Prasad (Reg. No.103041) was conducted on 27.6.2008 by the Addl. Secretary (Examination) and signature in application form, identification certificate and signed list were found unique. But the stand taken is that since the petitioner has written the WPC 31796/2008 4 register number of another candidate and signed against another candidate's register number, there is a violation of the existing rules regarding the conduct of the examination.
5. This court by the earlier judgment (Ext.P4) has directed as to how the truth could be found out. It was specifically directed that if it is found on verification of signature, what happened was an inadvertent error, then the Commission should see that the petitioner's participation in the written test is not invalidated for a fault which cannot be attributed to him. The said finding rendered by this court is binding on the Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the Commission has found that the signature and other details are unique as admitted in the counter affidavit, the petitioner's name could have been included rather than rejecting the representation itself. I find force in the above submission. True, in certain cases for non-compliance of the terms, the consequences that have been provided in the instructions by the Commission will result in cancellation of the result of the candidate. But herein, in the earlier judgment Ext.P4, this court has clearly issued a direction as to how the enquiry has to be conducted and as to how the signature should be verified. When the method that was suggested has resulted in a conclusion which is in favour of the petitioner, there is no other go, but to allow his application. The qualification prescribed for the post is only 7th standard. The mistake cannot be attributed to the petitioner alone. If he was properly guided by WPC 31796/2008 5 the invigilator, this situation could not have arisen also. In view of the above circumstances, according to me, the principles stated in the decisions relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel for the Commission cannot apply to the facts of this case.
6. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P10 is quashed. There will be a direction to include the name of the petitioner in the appropriate place in the rank list in accordance with the results of the written test, interview and cycle test. Appropriate action in this regard will be taken at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If any candidate lower in the rank has bee advised already, the above direction will not adversely affect such a candidate.
The writ petition is allowed as above. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/