Kerala High Court
Radhakrishnan C. Aged 37 Years vs The Kerala Public Service Commission on 11 March, 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
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2013/31ST VAISAKHA 1935
WP(C).No. 12593 of 2013 (Y)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
--------------
RADHAKRISHNAN C. AGED 37 YEARS
S/O. KUNJUNNI, CHEMBAMKULAM, KATAMPAZHIPURAM P.O.
PALAKKAD.
BY ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------
1. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.
2. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3. CHIEF ENGINEER HRM
THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
BY SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21-05-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 12593 of 2013 (Y) 2
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1- A TRUE COPY OF the DULY FILLED IN APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P2- A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.03.2013
EXHIBIT P3- A TRUE COPY OF the SUBMISSION MADE BY THE PETITIONER DATED
29.03.2013
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL
True Copy /
P.A to Judge
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
=========================
W.P(C).No.12593 of 2013
============================
Dated this the 21st day of May, 2013
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner appeared for the post of Mazdoor in the Kerala State Electricity Board but was not included in the shortlist as he failed to print the date of application on the photograph uploaded while submitting the online application. Petitioner therefore filed an application under Rule 15A of the Kerala Public Service Commission Procedure Rules (for short, "the Rules") to incorporate the date. That application is not considered by the first respondent. Hence this Writ Petition for a direction to set aside Ext.P2 and direct the first respondent consider the applications stated to be preferred under Rule 15A of the Rules as aforesaid.
2. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is computer-illiterate, the mistake is only accidental and is liable to be corrected in view of the power conferred under Rule 15A of the Rules.
3. The learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent has submitted that Rule 15A of the Rules has no application since that provision only confers power on the first respondent to correct mistakes in the rank list etc. It is also submitted that the mistake in W.P(C).No.12593 of 2013 2 this case is fatal as held in Sasikala T.V Vs. Kerala Public Service Commission & Anr. (2012(2) KHC 441).
4. Rule 15A of the Rules as I understand, only confers power on the authority referred therein to correct clerical, typographical, arithmetical or other mistake in the ranked lists, advice lists or shortlists etc., or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has stressed the expression "etc" following the specific words employed in Rule 15A to contend that it takes in an application preferred by an applicant to the post, I can only understand the expression "etc" as meaning documents similar to the expressed ones. That cannot extend to an application preferred by a party. In Binu Kumar Vs. Public Service Commission (2010(1) KLT 1024), it is held that Rule 15A only enables to correct the mistakes committed by the Public Service Commission and does not apply to cases where applicants omit to claim weightage. Therefore resort to Rule 15A of the Rules is not permissible.
5. Turning to the application preferred by the petitioner, it is not disputed that there was failure to print the date of application on the photograph affixed on it. In Sasikala T.V Vs. Kerala W.P(C).No.12593 of 2013 3 Public Service Commission & Anr. (supra), the Division Bench held that such mistakes are fatal as the stipulation is made to prevent impersonation and ensure fairness in the conduct of the examination. Hence the application of petitioner is defective and could not be reckoned. I do not find merit in this Writ Petition.
The Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna