Kerala High Court
Ajila P.G vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 25 July, 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.
TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2017/3RD SRAVANA, 1939
OP(KAT).No. 186 of 2017 (Z)
----------------------------
OA 2405/2016 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
-------
PETITIONERS/APPLICATIONS IN OA :
------------------------------
1. AJILA P.G
AGED 32 YEARS, W/O.DR.SATHEESH B,
RESIDENT OF PUTHOOR HOUSE,
VALLUVADI P O, ODAPPATTAM, S-BATHERI,
WYNAD DISTRICT, KERALA STATE-673592
2. SHEENA C T
AGED 37 YEARS, W/O.SREELAL K K,
RESIDENT OF HARI NIVAS, VAZHVATTA P O,
WAYANADU DISTRICT, KERALA 673122.
BY ADV. SRI.JOSE J.MATHAIKAL
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN OA :
-----------------------------
1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ,
KPSC OFFICE, PATTOM, PALACE P O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695004
2. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT OFFICER,
WYNAD DISTRICT OFFICE, MGT BUILDINGS,
WYNAD KERALA 673122.
R BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING
BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/6/2017, THE COURT ON
25-07-2017 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
bp
OP(KAT).No. 186 of 2017 (Z)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF ORIGINAL APPLICATION IN
OA 2405/2017 DTD 24/10/2016
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT BY PSC DTD
2/3/2017
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF REJOINDER BY PETITIONER
DTD 12/4/2017
EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DTD 12/4/2017 BY
TRIBUNAL.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
bp
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON & SHIRCY V.,JJ.
==============================
OP(KAT)No. 186 of 2017
==============================
Dated this the 25th day of July, 2017
JUDGMENT
Shircy V., J.
When Kerala Public Service Commission (for short 'PSC') invites application for a job prescribing a specified qualification, whether an application by a candidate, with equivalent or similar qualifications can be entertained, is the short question that falls for determination in this petition.
2. The applications submitted by the petitioners before the PSC for the post of High School Assistant ( HSA English) in the Education Department in Wayanad District pursuant to Annexure A1 notification, were rejected on the sole ground that they claimed B.Ed after the last date. In fact, they have passed the written examination and their names OPKAT186/2017 2 were included in the short list published by the PSC. The first petitioner was included in the main list and the 2nd petitioner was included in the supplementary list. Thereafter, their original certificates were verified and found correct. But subsequently they received communication intimating that their applications were rejected for the reason that they claimed B.Ed. qualification after the last date of notification. Aggrieved by the same, they approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) with O.A. No. 2405/2016. But the same was dismissed by an order dated 12/04/2017. The correctness and sustainability of the said order are questioned in this petition.
3. The respondents refuted the claim of these petitioners contending that as per the Gazette Notification, the qualifications prescribed for HSA English was Bachelor's Degree or Post Graduate Degree in English Language & Literature and B.Ed/BT/LT with English as optional subject. OPKAT186/2017 3 The last date fixed for receipt of the application form was 06/02/2013. The qualifications claimed by the first petitioner(Ajila) were (a) M.A.(English) claimed as equivalent to BA and (b) M.A.(English) claimed as equivalent/Higher to B.Ed. The qualifications claimed by the second petitioner were (a) B.A.(English Language & Literature), (b) B.A.(English Language and Literature) (claimed as equivalent/higher to B.Ed.). Both the petitioners did not claim B.Ed. qualification at the time of submitting their application or within the last date of receipt of the application, i.e. on 06/02/2013 by the PSC. M.A. English and B.A. English are not equivalent to B.Ed. They added B.Ed. qualification on 30/9/2014 and 14/10/2014 respectively. As per the general conditions, subsequent claims cannot be entertained and hence their applications were rejected.
4. Accepting the contentions raised by the respondents, OPKAT186/2017 4 the Tribunal dismissed their applications by an order dated 12/04/2017.
5. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well the learned counsel for the respondents.
6. Admittedly, the PSC has invited applications for the post of HSA(English) in the Education Department in various Districts as per Annexure A1 notification dated 31/12/2012. As per Annexure A1 notification the qualifications prescribed for the post are (a) A Bachelors Degree or Post Graduate degree in English Language and Literature and, (b) B.Ed./B.T./L.T. with English as optional subject conferred or recognised by any of the Universities in Kerala. The last date for receipt of applications was 06/02/2013 up to 12.00 midnight. The candidates could register applications as per 'One Time Registration' system on the official Website of PSC. Admittedly, the petitioners submitted their applications on "on-line" on 14.1.2013 for the post of HSA (English) in OPKAT186/2017 5 Wayanad District before the last date. Though they were qualified in the written examination conducted by the PSC and included in the short list published on 17.5.2016, as per Annexure A6 subsequently, they got intimation that their applications were rejected. (They attended the selection process as permitted by the CAT by an interim order) The application submitted by the first petitioner produced as Annexure-A13 would show that she had claimed M.A. (English) equivalent to BA. and M.A. English equivalent to B.Ed. (English) The copy of the application of the 2nd petitioner has not been produced along with this Petition for perusal before the Tribunal or before this Court. But it is pertinent to note that both the petitioners have not claimed B.Ed degree in the applications submitted before the PSC before the last date. As referred above, Ext.A13 which is the application form of the first petitioner submitted at 10.54 a.m. on 14.1.2013 does not carry a B.Ed. Degree as such. OPKAT186/2017 6 But what is stated is that she is holding M.A.(English)which is equivalent to B.Ed. Degree. So she has claimed M.A. English as equivalent to B.Ed. Degree at the time of submitting her application. The 2nd petitioner was also not having a case that in the application form submitted pursuant to the notification, she claimed B.Ed. Degree. It is also not in dispute that both these applicants/petitioners have added B.Ed. qualification only on 13/09/2014 and 14/10/2014 respectively, much late after 06/02/2013, the last date prescribed for submission of the applications for the post. So, obviously they submitted applications before the PSC, without the basic qualifications prescribed for the post of HSA (English). The PSC on scrutiny, have rightly rejected the applications on the ground that their applications were defective, for lacking the basic educational qualification.
7. Doubtless, when an application is invited for a OPKAT186/2017 7 particular post with prescribed qualifications, definitely the candidates, who possess or claim the same qualifications, alone can submit the application. In the notification it is made clear that the applicants are eligible to submit the applications only, if they possess the prescribed qualification and the persons who secure qualifications on a subsequent date, will never be considered as having the required qualification at the time of submitting the application for the post. It is also to be noted that for any post when an application is submitted, all the conditions prescribed therein have to be scrupulously followed. If the application is defective, a subsequent rectification is not possible, especially when such a provision is absent in the conditions stipulated for the same. Here, it is patently clear that the applications were invited by the PSC from candidates who possess B.Ed degree. Such being the case, no doubt only those candidates who possess the prescribed qualifications OPKAT186/2017 8 alone are eligible for submitting the applications. Securing the prescribed qualifications on a subsequent date, more specifically after the last date of submission of the applications, at any rate cannot be considered as proper submission of the applications. Here the fact that the first and the second petitioner secured B.Ed degree on 06/08/2008 and on 06/09/2016 respectively will be of no assistance to them. In fact, the rejection of the applications by PSC was for justifiable and valid reasons, as the basic qualification for selection to the post was lacking. The stand taken by the petitioners that the mistake had crept in while submitting the applications through "on-line" due to the defect of the computer also can not be accepted especially when so many candidates have submitted applications on "on-line" without any defect and there was no such complaint from any corner. So, the stand taken by them that the defects might have crept in, in the website while OPKAT186/2017 9 filling up the application form and they did not get an opportunity to rectify the mistake in the application by adding the requisite qualification at a later stage cannot be entertained as genuine or reasonable ground to accept their applications. When the queue for the selection by the PSC is a very long one, on moral and equitable grounds also the petitioners' claim for rectification of the applications can not be favorably considered. The PSC has to follow the directions in the notification scrupulously, otherwise it will result in injustice to the applicants in the queue. Therefore, the refusal of the PSC to accept the applications of the petitioners for the reason that they have not possessed the requisite qualification to be eligible for the said post is justified and the contentions raised by the petitioners are not legally sustainable.
8. In view of the aforesaid, we find that the Tribunal has exercised its powers judiciously by assigning cogent OPKAT186/2017 10 reasons for dismissal of the applications filed by the petitioners, challenging the decision of the PSC. In short, we find absolutely no justifiable or valid ground for interference.
Interference is declined and the Original petition is not admitted . Dismissed.
Sd/-
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE Sd/-
SHIRCY V. JUDGE ks.
True copy P.s. To Judge