Kerala High Court
Prakash P George vs High Court Of Kerala
Author: P.N.Ravindran
Bench: P.N.Ravindran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN
&
FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MAY 2013/13TH VAISAKHA 1935
WP(C).No. 4140 of 2013 (R)
---------------------------
PETITIONER :
--------------------------
PRAKASH P GEORGE,
PRAKASH & ASSOCIATES, 2ND FLOOR, VIVA BUILDINGS,
K.K. PADMANABHAN ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH - 682 018,
HAVING PERMANENT RESIDENCE AT PLATHOTTAM,
PATHAMPUZHA, POONJAR SOUTH, MEENACHIL- 686 600
BY SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP,SENIOR ADVOCATE
ADVS.SRI.P.SREEKUMAR
SRI.SADER E.REAZ
SRI.S.GANESH
SRI.P.S.SIDHAN
SRI.V.K.RAJANANDAN
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
2. THE REGISTRAR (RECRUITMENT AND COMPUTERIZATION),
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
3. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -PIN- 695 001.
R1 & R2 BY SRI.KRB.KAIMAL,SENIOR ADVOCATE
ADV. SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL
R3 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.VIJULAL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 26-03-2013 , THE COURT ON 03-05-2013 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
sts
WP(C)NO.4140/2013 (R)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
P1 COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 20/12/2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
P2 COPY OF THE PART I APPLICATION FORM SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
P3 COPY OF THE CHALLAN SHOWING THE REMITTANCE OF THE APPLICATION FEE
P4 COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE HISTORY LIST OF THE PETITIONER'S WEB
BROWSING
P5 COPY OF THE E MAIL SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON
31/1/2013
P6 COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 31/1/2013 SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
P7 COPY OF THE PART I FORM GENERATED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE
SUBMISSION OF THE PART I APPLICATION BY ON LINE.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO.JUDGE
sts
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
---------------------------
W.P.(C) No.4140 OF 2013
--------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of May, 2013
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner, a lawyer with more than 15 years standing at the Bar, applied for appointment by direct recruitment as District and Sessions Judge in the Kerala State Higher Judicial Service pursuant to Ext.P1 notification dated 20.12.2012 issued by this Court. As per Ext.P1 notification, applications were to be submitted online in two parts; Part I and Part II. The last date stipulated for registration of Part I was 24.1.2013. Registration of Part II had to be done before 4.30 PM on 31.1.2013. A system generated printout of the online application was to be submitted before 4.30 PM on 15.2.2013, along with supporting documents, by post. It was also stipulated that no other mode of application will be accepted. From Ext.P1 notification it can be seen that for Part I registration only the last date was stipulated but for Part II registration and for submission of the system generated printout of the application, apart from the last date it was also stipulated that the online application/printout has to be submitted before 4.30 PM on the respective dates.
2. Pursuant to Ext.P1 notification, the petitioner completed Part I registration in time. A copy of the printout of Part I of the WPC No.4140/2013 2 online application is on record as Ext.P2. This fact is not in dispute. The dispute involved in this writ petition relates to the registration of Part II of the online application. As stated above, registration of Part II of the online application was to be completed by 4.30 PM on 31.1.2013. The petitioner has averred in the instant writ petition, more particularly in paragraph 4 that though before 4.30 PM on 31.1.2013 he submitted Part II application online, he did not receive any response and consequently he could not get a printout of the Part II form. He has also stated that on realizing that there was some error in the website or in the software relating to the submission of the application, he sent Ext.P5 e-mail to the second respondent pointing out the said fact, that he also met the second respondent in person and submitted Ext.P6 representation pointing out the said fact, that the second respondent in turn told him that he would look into the matter, but his requests were of no avail. The petitioner has in this writ petition prayed for the following reliefs:
"(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing the respondents to provide the petitioner with the print out of his part II online application form submitted for the recruitment to the post of District and Sessions Judge immediately.
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to resubmit the Part II on line application form for the recruitment to the post of District and Sessions Judge, if the system has not accepted his Part II online application form submitted on 31.1.2013.
(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing the respondents to extend the deadline fixed for submission of the system generated printout of the online applications of the petitioner WPC No.4140/2013 3 till a decision is taken on exhibit P5 and P6 requests submitted by the petitioner.
(iv) Declare that the petitioner is entitled to get an opportunity to resubmit part II of the online application in the given circumstances and to submit the system generated print outs of the online application forms even beyond the period prescribed as per exhibit P1 notification."
3. When the writ petition came up before me on 13.2.2013, I directed the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 to get instructions and to file a statement on or before 20.2.2013. Pursuant thereto, the second respondent has filed a statement dated 18.2.2013. In paragraph 3 it is stated that though originally the last date fixed for Part I registration and payment of fee was 24.1.2013, on account of the fact that 24.1.2013 was later declared a holiday, the last date was extended up to 25.1.2013. It is also stated that the time for closure of Part II registration was up to 4.30 PM on 31.1.2013. In paragraph 4 thereof it is stated that in Part II registration the candidates are required to go through various stages namely (1) Uploading Photo and Signature (2) Fee Validation (3) Print Part I application (4) Part II Registration (5) Edit Part II Application (6) Print Part II application . In paragraph 5 it is stated that candidates who were in the process of submitting the online application as at 4.30 PM on 31.1.2013 were allowed to complete Part II registration, but none was allowed to register Part II afresh after 4.30 PM. It is also stated that 1337 candidates had submitted Part I registration and out of them 1003 WPC No.4140/2013 4 applicants have submitted Part II registration and as on 31.1.2013, the number of applicants who have successfully completed the online registration of Part I and Part II is 1003. As regards petitioner's grievance, the second respondent has in paragraph 6 and 7 of the statement dated 18.2.2013 averred as follows:
"6. As per the report of the Technical Director, NIC, the petitioner has not successfully completed submission of Part II though he has completed the uploading of Photo & signature, fee validation and generation of Part I application etc. on 31.1.2013, the last date for submission of online application. As per the log file, he started the uploading of photo and signature by 1.48 p.m. and completed the same by 1.54 p.m. He logged on to the system again at 2.30 p.m. for fee validation and generation of Part I application and completed it by 2.33 p.m. His next log on to the server was at 3.48 p.m. and logged out from the server at 4.28 p.m. He generated the Part I application once again during this period and nothing else was recorded in the system. So it means that he might not have successfully submitted the Part II application and hence no confirmation message for the successful competition of Part II application was shown to him. SMS and email alerts will be sent to the candidates on successful completion of both Part I and II applications. He logged on to the system again at 4.30 p.m. However, fresh filing of Part II application was closed at 4.30 p.m. on 31.1.2013.
7. In the light of the report of the Technical Director, NIC, there was no successful submission of Part II application by the petitioner. It may also be noted that out of the total number of 1003 applications submitted, 646 applications were submitted on the last two days i.e., 267 applications on 30.1.2013 and 379 applications on 31.1.2013. Only four complaints, including that of the petitioner, have been received with regard to difficulties in submitting Part II application and the Hon'ble Chief Justice has ordered to place the matter before the meeting of the Recruitment Committee to be held on 20.2.2013. There was no technical problem in the server which prevented the petitioner from successfully submitting his application. Since 1003 candidates have successfully completed Part II registration, the difficulty faced by the petitioner in submitting the Part II application might have been due to the problems persisted in the local computer or Internet connection. Moreover, the functioning of the website was closely monitored and no technical flaw was detected. All the candidate who contacted over phone were given advices regarding the application process."WPC No.4140/2013 5
4. In paragraph 6 it is stated that on 31.1.2013, the petitioner had logged on to the server for uploading of photo and signature by 1.48 PM and completed it by 1.54 PM, that he logged on to the server again at 2.30 PM for fee validation and generation of Part I application and completed it by 2.33 PM, that he again logged on to the server at 3.48 PM and logged out from the server at 4.28 PM, that during the said period he once again generated Part I application and nothing else was recorded in the system. It is stated that the petitioner might not have successfully submitted Part II application and hence no confirmation message for the successful completion of Part II application was shown to him. It is stated that the petitioner logged on to the server again at 4.30 PM, but fresh filing of Part II application was closed at 4.30 PM on 31.1.2013. In paragraph 7 it is stated that out of the total number of 1003 applications submitted, 646 applications were submitted on the last two days, viz; 267 applications on 30.1.2013 and 379 applications on 31.1.2013. It is stated that only four complaints, including that of the petitioner had been received with regard to difficulties in submitting Part II application and that the Hon'ble the Chief Justice has ordered them to be placed before the Recruitment Committee which is scheduled to meet on 20.2.2013. It is stated that there was no technical problem in the server which WPC No.4140/2013 6 prevented the petitioner from successfully submitting his application, that as 1003 candidates had successfully completed Part II registration, the difficulty faced by the petitioner in submitting Part II application might have been due to the problems in the local computer or the Internet connection. It is also stated that the functioning of the website was closely monitored, that no technical flaw was detected and that all the candidates who contacted over phone were given advice regarding the application process.
5. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dated 20.2.2013. He has stated that from the averments in the statement filed by the second respondent it is clear that he was online till 4.28 PM on 31.1.2013 and was making efforts to submit Part II application, that he had successfully uploaded his photograph, signature and the fee details and therefore, the possibility of failure in the system or the software used in the process cannot be ruled out. The petitioner has also averred that the second respondent has not in his statement dated 18.2.2013 averred that the petitioner has not submitted Part II application and that the fact that Ext.P2 printout of Part I application was taken at 2.32 PM after uploading the photograph, signature and the fee details would show that though he had submitted Part II application it was not properly recorded in the server or the system WPC No.4140/2013 7 maintained by the second respondent. The petitioner has averred that from the facts it is evident that the failure to register Part II application was only because of the failure of the system.
6. The writ petition thereafter came up for hearing on 4.3.2013. After hearing learned counsel on both sides, I directed the second respondent to place on record the total number of candidates who completed Part II registration between 2.30 PM and 4.30 PM and also the number of candidates who were online at 4.30 PM and completed Part II registration immediately thereafter. Pursuant thereto the second respondent has filed an additional statement dated 7.3.2013. In the third paragraph thereof it is stated that out of the 379 candidates who submitted Part II application on 31.1.2013, 166 candidates had filed Part II application between 2.30 PM and 4.30 PM, that on an average during the said period more than one Part II application was submitted every minute and that 15 candidates who who were in the process of submitting Part II application on 31.1.2013 had successfully completed Part II application after 4.30 PM. As regards the petitioner, it is stated that though he had completed the pre-requisites required to commence the online filing of Part II application, neither the server log file nor the browser history log produced by him would substantiate his claim that he had attempted WPC No.4140/2013 8 the filing of Part II application before 4.30 PM on 31.1.2013. The second respondent has also set out in the statement dated 7.3.2013 the details of 181 candidates who were online between 2.30 PM and 4.30 PM including 15 candidates who completed online registration of Part II application after 4.30 PM on 31.1.2013.
7. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dated 7.3.2013. In paragraph 2 thereof he has stated that though 166 applications were submitted between 2.30 PM and 4.28.56 PM, 15 candidates submitted Part II application only after 4.30 PM and that the last of the 15 applications was received only at 4.53.28 PM. In paragraph 3 it is stated that in the process of submission of online applications, there is no question of permitting all the persons waiting in the queue to submit the application, that it was clearly mentioned in the prospectus that online registration of Part II should be completed before 4.30 PM on 31.1.2013 and therefore it does not stand to reason that a prudent person would log on to the system at 4.28 PM or 4.29 PM to register Part II application and even in such an event it cannot be presumed that the respondents provided additional time to those applicants to submit applications after the prescribed time. The petitioner has also stated that the only explanation available for the extension of time is that the respondents had received complaints about the difficulty WPC No.4140/2013 9 experienced by candidates in uploading the applications, that some of the candidates who contacted the second respondent over telephone were advised to be online and to submit the application even after the prescribed time limit and this resulted in the submission of belated applications. Referring to the averment in paragraph 7 of the statement dated 18.2.2013 filed by the second respondent that all the candidates who contacted over telephone were given advice regarding the application process, it is stated that this averment would show that the candidates who contacted the second respondent over telephone were advised to be online and to submit the application even after the prescribed time limit. In paragraph 4 he has stated that as he was online till 4.28 PM, his status is similar to those persons who were given extension of time after 4.30 PM on 31.1.2013, that he went to the second respondent's office to lodge a complaint while others continued with the registration process even after the expiry of the time limit, that though he reached the recruitment cell in the office of the first respondent by 4.35 PM almost all the staff had left and the persons available there did not pay attention to his complaint but told him to meet the second respondent and that this was done at a time when at least 15 candidates were given extension of time to submit their applications. It is stated that the petitioner met the second WPC No.4140/2013 10 respondent on 31.1.2013 itself and on several days thereafter in connection with his complaint, but he was not told about the extension of time given to other candidates. He has also averred that though he does not find fault with the action of the respondents in extending the time limit if it was only to get over the difficulty caused to the candidates in the process of submission of the application, it stands on a different footing if it was done to enable the candidates who had logged on very late and did not have sufficient time to complete the registration. He has also reiterated his contention that the fact that he had regenerated Part I application as a part of Part II registration, would show that he had submitted Part II application online. The petitioner has also filed I.A.No.3761 of 2013 for an order directing the respondents to furnish the details regarding the log in and registration of the 15 candidates who were permitted to submit their application after 4.30 PM on 31.1.2013.
8. When the writ petition came up for further hearing on 8.3.2013, having regard to the said application, I directed respondents 1 and 2 to file a rejoinder to the statement dated 18.2.2013 and the additional statement dated 7.3.2013 having regard to the averments in the reply affidavit dated 7.3.2013 filed by the petitioner and the averments in the affidavit filed by him in support of I.A.No.3761 of WPC No.4140/2013 11 2013 within three days. The respondents were also directed to explain the meaning of the averment "all the candidate who contacted over phone were given advice regarding the application" by disclosing the person who was contacted over phone, the nature of the advice given and also the reason why the candidate contacted the person who gave the advice. The respondents were also directed to state the reason why all the candidates who were online at 4.30 PM on 31.1.2013 were allowed to complete Part II registration even after the expiry of the stipulated time.
9. Pursuant thereto, the Registrar (Subordinate Judiciary) of this Court has filed a statement dated 13.3.2013. The said statement is extracted below in full:
The statement in the reply affidavit dated 7.3.2013 filed by the petitioner that the submission of some applications started after 4.30 PM on 31.1.2013 is not correct, it is the time of completion of registration. Only the applicants who logged on to the system by clicking the sub link 'Part II Registration' in the main link 'Part II Registration' before 4.30 PM on 31.1.2013 for registration of Part II application or modification of entries in Part II application already made by them, were allowed to complete the activity beyond 4.30 PM.
Details furnished in the statement dated 18.2.2013 and additional statement dated 7.3.2013 filed by second respondent in no way substantiate the case of the petitioner that there existed some technical snag in receiving online applications on the last day. The contention of the petitioner that the extension of time was allowed due to the difficulties faced by the candidates on the last date is a baseless one. It may be noted that only 15 candidate were online at the closing time, of which only 7 were in the process of filing of fresh Part II Applications. The others were there only for the modification of entries in their already registered Part II application.
As stated in the earlier statement it is made clear that the time schedule was strictly adhered to in the process and it is not correct to say that extension of time was allowed due to complaints regarding WPC No.4140/2013 12 difficulty in uploading the application and to make good of the lapses on the part of the system or the software. There was no deviation from the time schedule stipulated in the notification for closure of Part II Registration. As stipulated, no one was permitted to log in to the sub link "Part II Registration" in the main link of Part II Registration after 4.30 PM. However, the applicants who have already logged on to the system before 4.30 PM for filing Part II Application or modification of entires in their already registered Part II Application, were allowed to submit Part II Application even after 4.30 PM. As per the details furnished by the R2 showing the login time of th fifteen candidates, it is made clear that all such candidates had legged on to the system for filing/modification of Part II Application before 4.30 PM.
The averments in the statement filed earlier by the respondents that advice regarding the application process were given to those candidates who contacted over phone means that advices given from the commencing day of online registration to the candidates who called for the following purposes.
1. Removal of doubts regarding creation of Key Number which the candidates have to generate by themselves during Part-I Registration.
2. Ascertaining the dimensions of photograph and signature to be uploaded.
3. Getting their fee payment validated.
4. Failure in logging on to Part-II Registration due to error in entering the Key Number or date of birth As per the notification, for removal of doubts, the candidates were instructed to contact the Recruitment & Examination Cell, High Court. The entire staff in the section were instructed to give advices to the candidates who contact over phone.
The cut off time 4.30 PM on 31.1.2013 meant that thereafter no candidate would be allowed to enter the Part II Registration sublink in the Part II Registration Main Link. That was the reason for allowing the candidates who were online before 4.30 PM to complete submission of Part II Application beyond 4.30 PM."
10. I heard Sri.K.Gopalakrishna Kurup, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.R.B.Kaimal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2. Sri.K.Gopalakrishna Kurup, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that the fact that the petitioner was online between 2.30 PM and 4.28 WPC No.4140/2013 13 PM on 31.1.2013 is not disputed by the respondents, that the petitioner had as a part of submission of Part II application uploaded his photograph and signature and fee details in Part I of the application form and also taken a printout thereof and therefore it lends credence to the petitioner's case that on account of some system error or fault, he was not in a position to submit Part II application though he was online till 4.28 PM on 31.1.2013. The learned Senior Advocate submitted that the fact that 15 candidates who were online at 4.30 PM were permitted to complete the submission of Part II of the application beyond 4.30 PM is proof positive of the fact that there was some technical snag in the registration process. Referring to the statements filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that out of the 15 candidates who were allowed to complete Part II online registration after 4.30 PM on 31.1.2013, 7 were fresh applicants who had logged on to the server after 4.00 PM on 31.1.2013 and this fact also would lend support to the petitioner's contention that there was some problem with the server or software which prevented the petitioner from submitting Part II application online on 31.1.2013, though 166 candidates had successfully generated and submitted Part II of the application online between 2.30 PM and 4.30 PM on 31.1.2013.
WPC No.4140/2013 14
11. Per contra, Sri.K.R.B.Kaimal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that it is evident from the fact that 166 candidates had submitted Part II application online between 2.30 PM and 4.30 PM on 31.1.2013, that atleast one application was being submitted every minute, that there was nothing wrong with the server or software and therefore no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Referring to the averments in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the statement dated 18.2.2013, the learned Senior Advocate submitted that on the last day 379 candidates had submitted applications and out of them 166 candidates had submitted the application between 2.30 PM and 4.30 PM and therefore, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that his failure to submit the application was on account of reasons beyond his control or on account of an error in the software or a failure of the server.
12. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. The fact that the petitioner had completed Part I registration online within the time limit stipulated for the purpose is not in dispute. The fact that he had again logged on to the server at 1.48 PM on 31.1.2013 to upload his photograph and signature and had completed it by 1.55 PM is not in dispute. Likewise WPC No.4140/2013 15 it is also not in dispute that he had again logged on to the server for fee validation and generation of Part I application and completed it by 2.30 PM on 31.1.2013. Clause 9(d) of Ext.P1 notification stipulates that in Part II Registration, the candidate has to upload his/her scanned photograph and signature, fill in fee payment details and detailed information about him/her. It is also stipulated that the details entered in Part II Registration can be modified, if required, up to three times before the last date prescribed. It is evident from Clause 9(c) of Ext.P1 notification that the basic information submitted by the candidate at the time of Part I Registration is of permanent nature and cannot be modified. The petitioner has in the writ petition averred that for submission of Part II application he had to upload his photograph, signature and fee details. The case set out by the petitioner in the writ petition is that before 4.30 PM on 31.1.2013, he had submitted Part II application form online, but he did not receive any response from the system and therefore he could not get a printout of the Part II form. He has averred that he thereupon sent Ext.P5 e-mail to the second respondent on 31.1.2013 followed by Ext.P6 representation which was submitted in person on the same day itself. In ground 'B' of the writ petition he has averred that though he submitted Part II application, the system did not respond and WPC No.4140/2013 16 therefore a printout could not be obtained. He has also averred that submission of Part II application was accepted by the system as no message to the contrary was received. The stand taken by the respondents in their statements dated 18.2.2013 and 7.3.2013 is that though the petitioner had logged on to the server between 1.48 PM and 1.54 PM on 31.1.2013 and again at 2.30 PM for fee validation and generation of Part I application and completed it by 2.33 PM and he had again logged on to the server at 3.48 PM and logged out at 4.28 PM, apart from generating Part I application once again during the said period, nothing else was recorded in the system. The second respondent has also averred that the petitioner might not have successfully submitted Part II application and hence no confirmation message for the successful completion of Part II application was shown to him. It is stated that the petitioner had logged on to the server again at 4.30 PM on 31.1.2013, but fresh filing of Part II application was closed at 4.30 PM on 31.1.2013.
13. It is evident from the materials on record that though it was stipulated in Ext.P1 notification that Part II registration will be closed at 4.30 PM on 31.1.2013, 15 candidates were allowed to submit the application after the stipulated time limit. Their details are as follows: WPC No.4140/2013 17
Sl.No. Appl.No. Name of the Date of Login Time Activity Date & Applicant filing Completed Time of activity completed NEELAM GOSWAMI 2013-01-31 2013-01-31 Edit 2013-01-31 167 176 16:24:31 Application 16:30:03 JIJI M.V. 2013-01-31 2013-01-31 Edit 2013-01-31 168 1091 16:24:31 Application 16:30:17 BIKRAMJEET SINGH 2013-01-31 2013-01-31 Fresh 2013-01-31 169 1124 16:08:01 Application 16:30:40 KRISHNA KUMAR G. 2013-01-31 2013-01-31 Edit 2013-01-31 170 592 16:27:38 Application 16:32:18 P.K.SYAMALA DEVI 2013-01-31 2013-01-31 Fresh 2013-01-31 171 1096 16:22:52 Application 16:33:38 BYJU S.R. 2013-01-31 2013-01-31 Edit 2013-01-31 172 1269 16:29:31 Application 16:35:24 K.A.JAYACHANDRAN 2013-01-31 2013-01-31 Edit 2013-01-31 173 1074 16:25:10 Application 16:35:31 SAJEEB S. 2013-01-31 2013-01-31 Fresh 2013-01-31 174 979 16:04:07 Application 16:35:51 VIDYA E. 2013-01-31 2013-01-31 Edit 2013-01-31 175 1206 16:20:49 Application 16:35:55 TOM ISSAC 2013-01-31 2013-01-31 Fresh 2013-01-31 176 1156 16:27:26 Application 16:37:28 JAYA P. NAIR 2013-01-31 2013-01-31 Fresh 2013-01-31 177 1112 16:23:05 Application 16:40:51 GANGADHARAN K. 2013-01-31 2013-01-31 Fresh 2013-01-31 178 1333 16:25:48 Application 16:41:32 SULEKHA K. 2013-01-31 2013-01-31 Edit 2013-01-31 179 482 16:29:51 Application 16:41:34 RAJITH DAVIS 2013-01-31 2013-01-31 Fresh 2013-01-31 180 405 16:05:22 Application 16:47:33 USHA NANDINI V. 2013-01-31 2013-01-31 Edit 2013-01-31 181 1048 16:17:27 Application 16:53:28
14. From the said list, it can be seen that Serial Nos.167 and 168 had logged on to the server shortly after 4.24 PM on 31.1.2013 for the purpose of editing their applications and had completed registration of Part II of the application a few seconds after 4.30 PM. Serial Nos.169, 171, 174, 176, 177, 178 and 180 had logged on to the server for the first time at 4:08:01 PM, 4:22:52 PM, 4:04:07 PM, WPC No.4140/2013 18 4:27:26 PM, 4:23:05 PM, 4:25:48 PM and 4:05:22 PM and had submitted their applications at 4:30:40 PM, 4:33:38 PM, 4:35:51 PM, 4:37:28 PM, 4:40:51 PM, 4:41:32 PM and 4:47:33 PM respectively, after the time limit stipulated for submission of the application in Ext.P1 notification. Apart from merely stating that those who were online were permitted to submit their application after 4.30 PM, there is no explanation forthcoming from the side of the respondents as to how and why it was permitted. It is evident that though Serial Nos. 167, 168, 170, 172, 173, 175, 179 and 181 were online before 4.30 PM, they had not submitted the application at 4.30 PM but only thereafter. There is no explanation at all as to why at the last moment a decision was taken to accept applications from 15 candidates after 4.30 PM on 31.1.2013. In paragraph 5 of the statement dated 18.2.2013 the second respondent has in categorical terms stated that no one was allowed to register Part II afresh after 4.30 PM and those candidates who were in the process of submitting the online application as at 4.30 PM on 31.1.2013 were allowed to complete Part II registration. On noticing that fact, this Court had by order passed on 4.3.2013 directed the second respondent to file a statement setting out the details regarding the total number of candidates who completed Part II registration between 2.30 PM and 4.30 PM on WPC No.4140/2013 19 31.1.2013 and the number of candidates who were online at 4.30 PM and completed Part II registration immediately thereafter. Pursuant thereto, the second respondent filed the statement dated 7.3.2013 wherein a list of 181 candidates who had successfully completed the filing of Part II application is set out. Inter alia it is stated that on 31.1.2013 a total number of 379 applications had been filed, that between 2.30 PM and 4.30 PM on 31.1.2013, 166 applications had been filed online and 15 applications had been filed after 4.30 PM. Though the statement dated 7.3.2013 would disclose that 15 candidates (Sl. Nos.167 to 181) had submitted the application after 4.30 PM on 31.1.2013, the statement did not show the time at which the said 15 candidates had logged on to the server. This Court therefore passed an order dated 8.3.2012 and pursuant thereto, a statement dated 13.3.2013 has been filed, which is extracted in full in paragraph 9 above.
15. In the order passed by this Court on 8.3.2013, this Court had directed respondents 1 and 2 to explain the meaning of the averment in the statement dated 7.3.2013 that "all the candidate who contacted over phone were given advice regarding the application" by disclosing the person who was contacted over phone, the nature of the advice given and also the reason why the candidate contacted the WPC No.4140/2013 20 person who gave the advice. This Court also directed the respondents to state the reason why all the candidates who were online at 4.30 PM were allowed to complete Part II registration even after the expiry of the stipulated time. Respondent 1 and 2 have in the statement dated 13.3.2013 only given a general explanation that advice regarding removal of doubts regarding creation of Key Number which the candidates have to generate by themselves during Part-I Registration, advice regarding dimensions of the photograph and signature to be uploaded, advice regarding validation of fee payment and advice regarding failure in logging on to Part-II Registration due to error in entering the Key Number or date of birth, were given to those candidates who contacted over telephone. It is also stated that the entire staff of the Recruitment & Examination Cell were instructed to give advice to the candidates who contact over phone.
16. As regards the second direction to state the reason why all the candidates who were online at 4.30 PM were allowed to complete Part II registration even after the expiry of the time limit, the explanation given is that the cut off time 4.30 PM on 31.1.2013 meant that thereafter no candidate will be allowed to enter the Part II Registration sublink in the Part II Registration Main Link and that was the reason why the candidates who were online before 4.30 PM were WPC No.4140/2013 21 allowed to complete submission of Part II application beyond 4.30 PM. The details regarding the candidates who were allowed to submit the application after 4.30 PM would show that 7 out of the 15 who were thus permitted had logged on to the server only after 4.00 PM to submit applications for the first time. They are Sl.Nos.169, 171, 174, 176, 177, 178 and 180. Out of them, Sl.No.169 had logged in at 16:08:01, Sl.No.171 had logged in at 16:22:52, Sl.No.174 had logged in at 16:04:07, Sl.No.176 had logged in at 16:27:26, Sl.No.177 had logged in at 16:23:05, Sl.No.178 had logged in at 16:25:48 and Sl.No.180 had logged in at 16:05:22. On the terms of Ext.P1 notification Part II registration should have been completed by 4.30 PM. It was not stipulated therein that those who are at online at 4.30 PM can continue the registration process and complete it at their leisure, as was done in the instant case when the last of the applications was submitted at 16:53:28. The said candidate (Sl.No.181) had logged on to the server at 16:17:27 for editing the application and completed it at 16:53:28. Yet another candidate (Sl.No.172) had logged on to the server at 16:29:31 for editing the application and completed it at 16:35:24. Yet another candidate (Sl.No.179) had logged on to the server at 16:29:51 for editing the application and completed it at 16:41:34. They could not have on the WPC No.4140/2013 22 terms of Ext.P1 notification proceeded with the registration of Part II application which should have been closed at 4.30 PM. Apart from stating that the 15 applicants who had logged on to the server and were online at 4.30 PM were allowed to complete the online registration, respondents 1 and 2 have not stated whether the said 15 candidates had logged on to the server at any point of time before 4.00 PM on 31.1.2013 and whether they had made attempts to register Part II of the application. As the submission of application is online, the petitioner cannot find out the said details and furnish it to this Court. Respondents 1 and 2 should have in my opinion disclosed to this Court as to whether the 15 candidates who were permitted to complete the registration of Part II of the application after 4.30 PM on 31.1.2013 had logged on to the server earlier on 31.1.2013 and whether they had experienced any problem in the submission of the application and whether they had contacted any one in the concerned section over telephone and whether any advice or clarification was given to them. It is admitted that eight candidates who had logged on to the server at 16:24:31, 16:24:31, 16:27:38, 16:29:31, 16:25:10, 16:20:49, 16:29:51, 16:17:27 to edit their applications, were allowed to submit their applications after 4.30 PM. The fact that 8 candidates had logged on to the server to edit their applications would establish WPC No.4140/2013 23 the fact that they had earlier entered the details in Part II registration and wanted the details to be edited. However as regards the remaining 7 candidates who had logged on to the server for registration of Part II of the application after 4.00 PM on 31.1.2013, respondents 1 and 2 have not stated whether they had logged on to the server at any earlier point of time on 31.1.2013. In such circumstances, I am persuaded to accept the submission made by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner that some among the candidates had experienced a difficulty in registering Part II of the application between 4.15 PM and 4.30 PM on 31.1.2013.
17. The petitioner had in Ext.P5 e-mail sent to the second respondent stated that though he had submitted Part II application online between 4.15 PM and 4.30 PM on 31.1.2013, he has not received any further information regarding acceptance of Part II application. He had also stated that he doubts whether it occurred as a result of system failure. He had also stated that he was not able to obtain a printout of the application. The petitioner has in Ext.P6 representation reiterated the said fact. The respondents have not denied having received Exts.P5 and P6 which were submitted on 31.1.2013. In such circumstances, from the conduct of the respondents in permitting 15 candidates including candidates who had WPC No.4140/2013 24 logged on to the server for submitting a fresh application at 16:27:26 PM on 31.1.2013 and a candidate who had logged on to the server for editing the application at 16:29:51 PM on 31.1.2013, 9 seconds before closure time, to complete the online registration after 4.30 PM and in the absence of any such stipulation in the notification, I am persuaded to accept the case of the petitioner that on account of some technical fault or error in the server he was disabled from completing Part II registration online before 4.30 PM on 31.1.2013. The fact that 15 applications which were submitted online after 4.30 PM on 31.1.2013 were received is itself in my opinion indicative of the fact that there was some problem which resulted in such a course of action being taken. I am therefore of the considered opinion that respondents 1 and 2 should permit the petitioner to register Part II application afresh and permit him to appear for the written test scheduled to be held on 15.5.2013, if his application is otherwise in order.
I accordingly allow the writ petition and direct respondents 1 and 2 to permit the petitioner to register Part II application online by making arrangements in that regard within three days from today. The last date stipulated for submitting a printout of the online application shall stand extended till 4.30 PM on 8.5.2013 in respect of the petitioner. Respondents 1 and 2 shall, in the event of the WPC No.4140/2013 25 petitioner's application being in order, issue the hall ticket and permit him to appear for the written test.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.4140/2013 26