KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE

COMMISSION
410 Kerala PSC
 Kerala PSC 411

AIR 2001 SUPREME COURT 2010

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3569-3580 OF 2001 & CONNECTED CASES
D.D. 3-5-2001
HON’BLE G.B.PATTANAIK, S.N.PHUKAN AND B.N.AGRAWAL, JJ

K.G.Ashok & Others ... Appellants

Vs.
Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors. ... Respondents

Recruitment : Condition that making false statement in appliclation entails rejection of

application whether valid? – Yes.
(A) Constitution of India, Arts. 309, 14 – Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules
(1958) R.3 – Rules of procedure framed by Public Service Commission, R.22 – appointment –
Notification by Public Service Commission – Imposing restriction on making application in
respect of more than one district in response to one and same notification – Does not amount to
denial of opportunity to candidate for applying to any post – Not violative of Art.14 – Candidates
securing appointments on making false declaration and applying to more than one district in
contravention of advertisement notification – Not entitled to relief even on equitable grounds.

In the instant case the notification inviting applications for districtwise selection for the
posts of Junior Inspector Scale II, incorporated the specific instructions to the effect that candidates
should not send applications for the post in more than one district and his failure to observe the
same would entail rejection of application of such a person apart from taking other actions like
initiation of disciplinary action, removal from service etc. Though a candidate is prohibited
from applying to more than one district he is free to choose any district of his choice and thus the
only thing is that the candidate is not entitled to apply for the same post in more than one district
at a time. Here, the right of the candidate is not curtailed as he/she is not prevented from choosing
the district of his/her choice. At the same time, if every person is permitted to apply for all
districts the number of applications received by the Commission will be 14 times the number of
applications now being received with the result that the Commission will be doing a futile exercise
of selection work, in the other 13 districts, as a candidate can after all accept appointment in only
one district. Considering all these aspects the Commission has imposed the restriction on
candidates from applying in more than one district in response to one and the same notification.
412 Kerala PSC

Thus the restriction does not tantamount to the denial of opportunity to a candidate for applying
to any post. [Paras 12, 13]

Further it has been simply pleaded that Note-II of the Gazette notification was violative
of Art.14 of the Constitution. Neither before the High Court nor before the Supreme Court
necessary facts showing discrimination have been pleaded inasmuch as there is nothing to show
that more meritorious persons have been deprived of employment whereas persons of inferior
merit have been selected. Apart from the fact that the necessary facts leading to discrimination
have not been pleaded, there is absolutely no material to show that a case of discrimination is
made out. It cannot be said that Note-2 of Gazette notification restricting the choice of candidates
to one district is violative of equality clause enshrined in Arts.14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Since the restriction contained in Note-2 is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, therefore,
the question of reading down the same does not arise. [Paras 18, 19]

In the concluding portion of one short notification dated 11-4-1996 it was specifically
mentioned that for more details a candidate was required to refer to concerned notification meaning
thereby the aforesaid notification dated 2.4.1996. Moreover it has been further stated in the
short notification that model application form has been appended in the Gazette notification
again meaning there by notification dated 2-4-1996. In these cases some of the appellants in
their application form, in reply to column 8(b), which required a candidate to state whether he
had applied in more than one district, had stated ‘No’ and others ‘Yes’ though all of them had
applied in more than one district. In view of language in the short notification a candidate was
obliged under law to look into the Gazette notification dated 2-4-1996, more so when in the
application form which was duly filled up by the appellants, it was specifically enumerated that
“candidates should read the relevant Gazette notification inviting applications before filling up
application form”. Thus the plea that 436 candidates including appellants out of 1270 candidates
applied for more than one district as they were misled by the short notification dated 11-4-1996
and were not aware of the penal provision contained in Note-2 of Gazette notification dated 2-4-
1996 would not be tenable. Therefore the order of Public Service Commission rejecting the
candidature of the appellants, candidates, who have applied to posts for more than one district
and made false declaration, would not be liable to be interfered with. [Paras 21, 22, 24]

The said candidates would not also be entitled to relief on grounds, merely because they
had crossed the upper age limit and number of vacancies are available. [Para 23]
***
 Kerala PSC 413

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP NO.12957 OF 1999 (P)
D.D. 14.8.2003
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRAN

M.V.Muraleedharan Nair & Ors. ... Petitioners

Vs.
Kerala Public Service Commission & Anr.... Respondents

Examination: Errors in Question Paper:

The petitioners who participated in an examination conducted for selection to the post of
Villageman alleged that a large number of questions have no intelligible answers, that the standard
of the questions was so high etc. – The High Court in view of the fact that the three questions
which were described as erroneous have been deleted for assessment of merit and the marks
redistributed and the selection was of 1999 and a rank list had been already exhausted dismissed
the writ petition.

JUDGMENT
Petitioners had participated in an examination conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission
for selection to the post of Villageman. A copy of the question paper that had been issued to the
candidates is produced as Exhibit P1 and it is submitted by the petitioner that a large number of
the questions had no intelligible answers to be given at all. The other criticism was that the
standard of the questions was so high, especially when the minimum qualification for responding
to the post was fixed as pass in seventh standard. However, at this distance of time, no reliefs
could be granted to the petitioners, since the selection was of 1999 and a rank list had been
prepared thereafter the standing counsel for the PSC submits that the list stands exhausted.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there should be a direction to the PSC to
adopt a realistic approach in the matter of setting up of the question papers and the purpose of
filing the writ petition was to draw the attention of one and all that the aspirants of job were
being given a raw deal.
414 Kerala PSC

3. The counter affidavit filed by the respondents discloses that the PSC has a set method
whereunder examination are to be held in utmost secrecy. The experts in the field are identified
and they are given the necessary instructions to prepare the question papers to assess the general
awareness and competitiveness of the candidates. Such question papers are printed and distributed
to thousands of examinees in District Centres and utmost secrecy is maintained and till such
time the distribution is made, even the members of the Commission do not get an opportunity to
look into the papers. It may not be proper or practical for the PSC to verify the questions in the
question papers submitted before hand for obvious reasons. It is submitted that among the
thousands of candidates who had participated in the test, these petitioners alone have come with
an original petition. According to the counsel, it is sufficient to indicate that general standard of
the candidates were high and there were no objectionable features as had been highlighted. It is
also submitted that the three questions which were described as erroneous in the original petition
had been deleted for assessment of merit and the marks re-distributed.

4. I am of the view that satisfactory explanations have been given by the PSC and it will be
superfluous to issue directions to them since the experience gained by them over the years might
be substantial and sufficiently good enough to make possible for them to take care of the situation.
The complaints of the petitioners also are likely to be taken notice of as feed back, the counsel
assures, as always they are trying for excellence and thoroughness in selecting the best candidates.

The original petition is dismissed.

***
 Kerala PSC 415

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP (C) NO.36104 OF 2003 (W)
D.D. 17.11.2003

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.RAMACHANDRAN

Sanan T.G. & Ors. ... Petitioners

Vs.
The State of Kerala & Ors. ... Respondents

Recruitment: Physical Efficiency Test and Physical Test:

Petitioners candidates for the post of Excise Inspectors were unsuccessful in the Physical Test –
Challenged the result on the ground that there were irregularities in the selection and sought for
fresh test.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition with the following observations:
“ ........ As pointed out by the standing counsel for the respondents, physical
standards and efficiency can be improved by constant practice and ability shown at
particular context had been taken as yardstick. It might be possible at a later stage
that persons might be able to show improvement. Therefore, it would be unfair to
concede to their request that they should be subjected to a fresh test. A consideration
of appeals in such circumstances might be improper. The grievances are not capable
of being redressed through Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

JUDGMENT
During the year, 1998, the Public Service Commission had notified selection to the post
of Excise Inspectors. Petitioners are graduates or post graduates and had come out successful in
written test. Physical efficiency test and minimum physique were essential qualifications for
being considered for appointment to the post. In the physical test, petitioners did not come out
successful and the Writ Petition had been filed in the aforesaid context pointing out that the
416 Kerala PSC

assessment of their prowess had not been made impartially and they had been subjected to
discrimination.

2. Dr.Kylasanathan Pillai, appearing for the petitioners submits that the tests were held in different
venues and so far as the test at Chandrasekharan Nair Stadium was concerned, majority of the
persons who appeared for the physical test was declared unqualified. The approach adopted by
the fourth respondent who had been entrusted with the job was unfriendly. Most of the decisions
taken by him were arbitrary and discouraging. There was even difference of opinion between
the judges. The petitioners have referred to a few circumstances which according to them,
indicate that a just selection had never been carried out.

3. However, the allegations are too vague and cannot be countenanced or expected to be adopted,
in an impartial selection. It may be difficult for petitioners to digest the fact that they had been
adjudged as failed. Almost in identical circumstances, I had occasion to hear another Writ Petition
(W.P.(C) No.35560 of 2003) filed by a few candidates who had also failed to secure pass marks.
The above Writ Petition had been disposed of after hearing the learned Standing Counsel for the
P.S.C. As in the above case, it is pointed out by the Standing Counsel for the Commission that
there were no irregularities about the selection reported. If there were any irregularities reported,
then only enquiries were necessary.

4. Counsel refers to the appeals that had been filed by the petitioners and points out that they
were refused to be accepted. Request is that a fresh test may be held so as to assess their merits,
de novo. As pointed out by the standing counsel for the respondents, physical standards and
efficiency can be improved by constant practice and ability shown at particular context had been
taken as yardstick. It might be possible at a later stage that persons might be able to show
improvement. Therefore, it would be unfair to concede to their request that they should be
subjected to a fresh test. A consideration of appeals in such circumstances might be improper.
The grievances, are not capable of being redressed through Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.

The Writ Petition is dismissed.

***
 Kerala PSC 417

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WRIT APPEAL NO.1053 OF 2004
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 15155/2004 DATED 25.5.2004
D.D. 10.6.2004

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.N.K.SODHI

AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN

M.Ramla Beevi & Ors. ... Appellants

Vs.
State of Kerala & Ors. ... Respondents

Recruitment: Validity of Rank List:

The rank list of Lower Division Clerks was published by the Commission on 16.5.2000 and it
was valid for a period of 3 years as per the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure
– The rank list was extended till 4.2.2004 before it expired – After the rank list expired writ
petition filed for extending the same was dismissed on the ground that the rank list already
expired could not be extended after the date of expiry – The said decision was confirmed in the
Writ Appeal.

Held:
Validity of a rank list can be extended during its currency in order to keep it alive and not
thereafter.

JUDGMENT
The appellant before us are persons whose names appear in the rank list published the Kerala
Public Service Commission for appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerks in various
departments. The rank list was published on 16.5.2000 and as per the Kerala Public Service
Commission Rules of Procedure the same was valid for a period of three years. Before the rank
list could expire, the Commission extended the validity of the rank list till 4.2.2004. The rank
418 Kerala PSC

list has now expired. Appellants filed a writ petition out of which the present appeal has arisen
with a prayer that the Commission be directed to extend the rank list as was done in the case of
some other candidates. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that
the rank list already stands expired and that the same could not be extended after the date of
expiry. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed under Section 5 of the Kerala
High Court Act.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and are of the view that there is no
merit in the writ appeal. Admittedly, the rank list expired on 4.2.2004 and the Commission had
not extended its validity before that date. According to 5th proviso to Rule 18 of the aforesaid
Rules the Commission has the power to extend the validity of a rank list to keep the same alive.
It would obviously mean that the validity of a rank list could be extended only during its currency
in order to keep it alive and not thereafter. In the instant case, the rank list expired on 4.2.4004
and it cannot now be extended so as to bring life to a list which has already expired.

3. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The appellants wTw(621rnsaid)]Tamu as no

 Kerala PSC 419

IN THE HIGH OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP (C) No.29243 of 2004 (F)
D.D. 26.11.2004
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.DENESAN

V.Swadathan Pillai K ... Petitioner

Vs.
The Kerala Public Service Commission & Anr. ... Respondents

Examination: Violation of Instructions to Candidates:

The petitioner a candidate for the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher appeared for the
written test but his answer sheet was not valued because he did not blacken the bubbles showing
the question booklet/answer sheet – The petitioner contended that the mistake was inadvertent –
The High Court rejected the contention and dismissed the writ petition by following the decision
of the Supreme Court that where violation of instructions issued by the Commission is established
absence of intention to violate the mandate of the instruction is not material.

Case referred:
1992 (2) S.C.C. 207 – Shivakumar & Ors. v. V.M.Vijayashankar & Ors.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner applied for the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher (Botany). He was called for
the written test which was conducted on 29-10-2003. When the result of the examination was
published by the Public Service Commission, petitioner’s name was not included in the list. He
submitted an application for rechecking his answer sheet. In response to that application, petitioner
was informed that his answer sheet was not valid because he did not blacken the bubbles showing
the question booklet/answer sheet. Petitioner submits that his answer sheet ought not to have
been subjected to such a treatment at the hands of the Public Service Commission for a simple
omission happened on his part inadvertently. Petitioner further submits that the omission on his
part to blacken the bubbles showing the question booklet cannot be taken as a serious omission
because even in cases where blackening is not done, the answer sheet can be valued properly and
420 Kerala PSC

it is not going to make any fatal impact as the Public Service Commission seems to think.

2. Learned Standing counsel for the P.S.C. has drawn my attention to the instructions given to
the candidates. In that instruction the candidates have been very specifically warned that the
bubbles should be blackened. According to the Standing Counsel, the consequences of committing
an omission of that kind is not that inconsequential as the petitioner would attempt to show.
Standing Counsel for the Commission brings to my notice judgment in O.P.No.28653 of 2002
which was disposed of by me observing inter alia as follows:

“The Sanding Counsel brought to my notice, the decision of the Supreme Court in
Shivakumar and Others v. V.M.Vijayashankar and Others (1992 (2) S.C.C. 207). In that decision
it was held by the Supreme Court that the Commission is justified in not evaluating the answer
book where violation of instructions issued by the Commission is established. Supreme Court
has also held that absence of intention to violate the mandate of the instruction is not material.

Admittedly there is non-compliance of the instructions specifically printed on the

admission ticket itself. If the petitioners have omitted, whether inadvertently or deliberately, to
write the roll numbers in their answer script, the blame cannot be put at the doors of the
Commission. Instructions of the Commission printed on the Admission Ticket are meant to be
taken care of and duly complied with uniformly by all the candidates and petitioners cannot
claim any exception from that. Very often lack of care and diligence visits the candidates with
adverse consequences. This Court is not justified in exercising its discretionary power under
Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of such persons upsetting the functioning of the
Commission which is bound to deal with the cases of lakhs of candidates for whose guidance
and compliance a uniform set of instructions is issued. If relief is granted to these petitioners
alone, it will amount to unjust discrimination. I am not satisfied that the petitioners are entitled
to get relief in this Original Petition. Original petition is liable to be dismissed and I do so.”

3. In this case, there is no scope for taking a different view or to allow the prayers made in this
writ petition. Though unfortunate, the petitioner has to blame himself for the omissions committed.
Candidates expecting responsible jobs ought to conduct themselves in such a manner that their
answer sheets are not made liable for rejection for defects and violations of the instructions. Writ
petition fails. Dismissed.
***
 Kerala PSC 421

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

W.P. (C) NO.17186 OF 2004-U
D.D. 2.2.2005
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.RAMACHANDRAN

Srivalsan K.V. ... Petitioner

Vs.
The Deputy Secretary, Kerala PSC & Anr. ... Respondents

Retotalling of Marks:
The petitioner who participated in an examination conducted by the Commission and not secured
a position in the rank list sought for verification of marks and the Commission informed that
there was no mistake in the retotalling of marks – The petitioner alleged that if the contents of
the answers were specifically to be examined it would have been possible for him to establish
that the marks awarded were inadequate and insufficient – The High Court observing that whatever
possible can be done by the Commission was done dismissed the writ petition.

JUDGMENT
Petitioner had partaken in an examination conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission
in July, 2003. However, it came out that he could not secure a position in the rank list. The
petitioner had thereupon submitted an application for verification of the marks, but what was
offered was only a rechecking of the answer scripts. By Ext.P2, he has been advised by the
Secretary of the Public Service Commission that there was no change in the marks awarded to
him and there was no mistake in the totaling of marks and no answer was left without being
valued.

2. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the stand of the Public Service Commission was
objectionable, since the contents of the answers were specifically to be examined and it would
have been possible for him to establish that the marks awarded were inadequate and insufficient.

3. However, I see that the examination was held early in 2003 and a verification of the answer
scripts, at this juncture, may not be expedient. Public Service Commission is conducting
422 Kerala PSC

examinations almost every day and it is impractical therefore to direct them to rake up old
records from the store room or subject them to a review in the presence of the petitioner, so as to
satisfy the whims of the petitioner.

4. Prima facie, I am satisfied that whatever possible is done by the Public Service
Commission to allay the apprehensions of the petitioner. Further indulgence by this Court is not
justified.

The Writ Petition is therefore dismissed.

***