Kerala High Court
Dr.Sreejesh Vijayan vs The State Of Kerala on 16 August, 2013
Author: Babu Mathew P.Joseph
Bench: Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Babu Mathew P.Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH
FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/3RD KARTHIKA, 1935
OP(KAT).No. 3503 of 2013 (Z)
---------------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 1896/2013 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
-------------
PETITIONER(S):
-----------------------
DR.SREEJESH VIJAYAN, AGED 34 YEARS,
S/O.VIJAYAN, OPP. KANNUR HANDLOOM EXPORTS, MELE CHOVVA,
CHOVVA(PO), KANNUR.670 006,
JUNIOR CONSULTANT GOVT. LEPROSY HOSPITAL, CALICUT.
BY ADV. SRI.BIJU.P.N.
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
PATTOM. 695 004.
R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NOBLE MATHEW
R BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 25-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
PJ
OP(KAT).No. 3503 of 2013 (Z)
----------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
P1- TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1896/2013.
P2- TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN O.A.NO.1896/2013 DATED 16.8.2013.
P3- TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN OP(KAT)NO.2011/2013 DATED 18/6/2013.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
---------------------------------------
NIL.
/ TRUE COPY /
P.S. TO JUDGE
PJ
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &
BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JJ.
....................................................................
OP(KAT) No.3503 of 2013
....................................................................
Dated this the 25th day of October, 2013.
'C.R.'
J U D G M E N T
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
1.Petitioner's application was rejected by the Public Service Commission and his name was removed from the short list on the ground that the photograph uploaded along with the application did not carry the name of the applicant and the date on which that photograph was taken. The notification requires that the name of the applicant and the date on which the uploaded photograph is taken are to be inscribed on that photograph. The PSC's notification prescribes that the photograph, which is uploaded, should be taken within a particular time span fixed in that notification with reference to date. The petitioner herein having chosen to take recourse to judicial process for redressal of his grievances, we do not find any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the learned Tribunal having applied the ratio of Sasikala T.V. v. K.P.S.C. [2012(2) KHC 441].
OP(KAT)3503/13 -2-
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner made reference to the decisions in Ushakumari v. State of Kerala, [2013(4) KLT 11] and in WP(C) Nos.10989 and 10991 of 2012 referred to in Ushakumari's case. The judgment in WP(C) Nos.10989 and 10991 of 2012 clearly shows that the learned Judge did not proceed to lay down any principle of law, after having noted that the defects pointed out cannot be brushed aside as immaterial. The learned Judge had taken a lenient view, as stated in that judgment, to direct that the applications of the petitioners in those cases be considered. We further find that the Ushakumari's case (supra) is decided relying on the judgment in WP(C) Nos.10989 and 10991 of 2012 without stating any further principle of law. We deem it appropriate to now point out that as stated in Sasikala's case (supra), the whole object sought to be achieved is to ensure not only transparency, but also to exclude the possibility of any allegation as to impersonation. It has to be remembered that such allegations can come against the PSC and the process of examination and selection, even after the selection process is over. It was, therefore, that the view expressed in WP OP(KAT)3503/13 -3- (C) No.17767 of 2011 was affirmed in Sasikala's case (supra). In view of the above, this original petition fails and it is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) (BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) jg/25/x