Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Kamalan T vs The Kerala State Electricity Board on 30 May, 2013

Author: Thomas P.Joseph

Bench: Thomas P.Joseph

       

  

  

 
 
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT:

          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

     THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2013/9TH JYAISHTA 1935

                 WP(C).No. 13680 of 2013 (H)
                 ----------------------------

    PETITIONER(S):
    ------------

      KAMALAN T, CHAVATTIL VEEDU,
      KULANGARA BHAGOM, CHAVARA P.O.
      KOLLAM DIST.

      BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS

    RESPONDENT(S):
    -------------

   1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
      REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER,(HRM)
      VAIDUTHI BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM - 695001

   2.  THE SECRETARY,
      KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
      PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001

   3. THE DISTRICT OFFICER,
      KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
      DISTRICT OFFICER, KOLLAM - 695001

   4. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
      REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
      THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001.

      R1 BY SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB
      R2 TO R4 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC

      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)  HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
      ON  30-05-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
      FOLLOWING:

BP

WP(C).No. 13680 of 2013 (H)
----------------------------

                            APPENDIX

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
----------------------

EXHIBIT P1:  TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED THROUGH
             ONLINE BY THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P2:  TRUE COPY OF THE CALL LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD
             RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3:  TRUE COPY OF THE INVALIDATION DETAILS OF THE
             PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P4:  TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE
             PETITIONER.


RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS  :             NIL.
-----------------------

                                            //TRUE COPY//


                                            P.A. TO JUDGE
BP



                   THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
          =========================
                   W.P(C).No.13680 of 2013
        ============================
             Dated this the 30th day of May, 2013

                         J U D G M E N T

The learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondents 2 to 4.

2. The petitioner applied for the post of Mazdoor (Electricity Worker) in the Kerala State Electricity Board. Grievance of the petitioner is that his candidature was rejected for the reason of non bubbling of register number in the answer paper. The learned counsel submits that petitioner has not even passed the S.S.L.C and that the mistake stated to be committed is only of a minor nature which does not affect identity of the candidate so far as answer sheet is concerned. It is also contended that as per Sec.15A of the Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, 1976 (for short, "the Rules") the Public Service Commission (for short, "the PSC") has the power to correct such errors.

3. The learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 to 4 submits that Rule 15A of the Rules has no application since the said provision only empowers the PSC to correct mistakes in its record and not with respect to an application preferred by an applicant. Reliance is placed on the decision in Sasikala Vs. Kerala Public Service Commission (2012(2) KHC 441). It is also submitted W.P(C).No.13680 of 2013 2 that the mistake in the answer paper cannot be treated as minor. Reliance is placed on the decisions in Susheela Vs. Kerala Public Service Commission (2010(4) KLT 986) and Kerala Public Service Commission Vs. Shaiju T.L (2013 (1) ILR Kerala 13).

4. Reading Rule 15A of the Rules, it is clear that power conferred on the PSC is to correct mistakes of the nature referred to therein in its records. That power does not extend to correcting mistakes if any, in the application preferred by a candidate. That is a view taken by this Court in Sasikala Vs. Kerala Public Service Commission (supra).

5. So far as answer sheet of the petitioner is concerned, it is not very much in dispute that there is wrong bubbling of register number in the answer sheet. In Susheela Vs. Kerala Public Service Commission and Kerala Public Service Commission Vs. Shaiju (supra) the Division Benches have taken the view that such mistakes cannot be said to be inconsequential and that it shall invalidate the answer sheet.

In that view of the matter, reliefs sought for in the Writ Petition cannot be allowed.

The Writ Petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna