Judgments‎ > ‎Case Number‎ > ‎

Original Petition (Kerala Administrative Tribunal)

O.P. (K.A.T.) No. 1536 of 2013 - Beena N.S. Vs. The Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala, 2013 (2) KLT 930 : 2013 (2) KHC 642

posted Jul 9, 2013, 1:06 AM by Law Kerala   [ updated Jul 9, 2013, 1:12 AM ]


(2013) 306 KLR 609

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH

MONDAY,THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2013/30TH VAISAKHA 1935

OP(KAT).No. 1536 of 2013 (Z)

-----------------------------

(OA.NO. 2146/2012 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM )

-------------------------------------------------

PETITIONER :

--------------------------

BEENA.N.S., AGED 42 YEARS, D/O.SIVARAMAN, NADUVILPURACKAL HOUSE, M.G.NAGAR, H.NO.212, PUNKUNNAM, THRISSUR-680 002.

BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

RESPONDENT(S):

----------------------------

1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

2. THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.

3. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE, THRISSUR-695 004.

R1 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NOBLE MATHEW R2 BY ADV.SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC

THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-05-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts OP(KAT).No. 1536 of 2013 (Z) -------------------------------------------- 

APPENDIX 

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS 

------------------------------------- 

  • EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF THE OA.NO.2146/2012 FILED BEFORE THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 22/10/2012 
  • EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 31/10/2012 

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE

'C.R.'

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JJ.

....................................................................

OP(KAT) No.1536 of 2013

....................................................................

Dated this the 20th day of May, 2013.

Head Note:-

Public Service Commission - Clause 2(v) - General Conditions - Notification for recruitment to the category of Last Grade Servant in Thrissur District - Age Relaxation - employees of the Kerala Government would be eligible petitioner was working in the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board - she cannot claim to be one governed by the provisions of the Kerala Public Services Act.

J U D G M E N T

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner quite in extenso, and have bestowed our anxious consideration to the interpretation given by the Tribunal to clause 2(v) of the General Conditions attached to the Public Service Commission notification for recruitment to the category of Last Grade Servant in Thrissur District. The said clause dealt with reckoning of provisional service for age relaxation. It clearly encapsulates only those persons, who are in the service as employees of the Kerala Government, who would be eligible to such relaxation. Admittedly, the petitioner was working in the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board, which is a statutory board constituted under the relevant Act. Therefore, she cannot claim to be one governed by the provisions of the Kerala Public Services Act or that she is a member of such service to be called an employee of the Kerala Government for the purpose of the aforenoted clause, which authorizes relaxation of age to a particular group of persons. We do not find any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the approach of the Tribunal. Therefore, the original petition fails.

In the result, this original petition is dismissed in limine.

(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)

(BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE)

jg


O.P. (K.A.T.) No. 1073 of 2013 - Shabu Vs. State of Kerala, (2013) 301 KLR 285 : 2013 (2) KLT 598

posted May 31, 2013, 9:06 AM by Law Kerala   [ updated May 31, 2013, 9:07 AM ]


(2013) 301 KLR 285 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/27TH PHALGUNA 1934

OP(KAT).No. 1073 of 2013 (Z)

-----------------------------

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA.498/2012 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 12-12-2012

..............................................

PETITIONER(S) :

----------------------

1. R.SHABU, ATTENDANT, AGED 44 YEARS VETERINARY HOSPITAL KANJIRAMKULAM NOW WORKING AT VETERINARY DISPENSARY KARODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

2. R.SUKUMARAN, ATTENDENT, VETERINARY POLY CLINIC NOW WORKING AT REGIONAL POULTRY FARM KUDAPPANAKKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE

RESPONDENT(S) :

------------------------

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AGRICULTURE (AHE) DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

2. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ANIMARL HUSBANDARY, VIKAS BHAVAN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

3. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

4. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE MALAPPURAM - 676 505.

5. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE KASARAGOD - 671 121.

6. MATHEW SAM, S/O.SAMUEL,, AGED 34 YEARS VETTIKAYAMUKALIOL HOUSE, PULAMON P.O., KOTTARAKKARA GENERAL SECRETARY ALL KERALA VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION CERTIFICATE HOLDERS ASSOCIATION 691 506.

BY SRI.NOBLE MATHEW, GOVERNMENT PLEADER BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC

THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

APPENDIX

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

-------------------------------------

  1. EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF THE WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 17064/2009.
  2. EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/06/2009 IN WPC 17064/2009 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
  3. EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF THE AFFADIVIT AND PETITION FOR AMENDMENT.
  4. EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN WPC 17064/2009.
  5. EXHIBIT P5: COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN WPC 17064/2009.
  6. EXHIBIT P6: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/01/2013 IN TA 3168/2012 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
  7. EXHIBIT P7: COPY OF THE ORDER 28/6/2012 IN TA 2667/2012 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
  8. EXHIBIT P8: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12/12/2012 IN O.A 498/2012 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

---------------------------------------

/TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE AMV

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & B.KEMAL PASHA, JJ.

....................................................................

O.P.(KAT) No.1073 of 2013 (Z)

....................................................................

Dated this the 18th day of March, 2013.

Head Note:-

Service Law - Retrospective amendment to the Recruitment Rules - Absence of qualification - When a notification is issued by the P.S.C prescribing qualifications in terms of the Recruitment Rules that stood as on the date of the notification, that would attract aspirants for the posts - At least a group would have been excluded by truthfully keeping themselves away from applying, rather than taking a chance of making an application on the admitted situation of absence of qualification - there will be persons in the government service who would stand resultantly deprived of their opportunity - the feeder category for 'by transfer' appointment lies spread out to the different departments in Government - when the advertisement mentions a particular qualification, that has necessarily to be treated as governing the persons aspiring and within the field of choice.

J U D G M E N T

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

As per Ext.P1 Recruitment Rules, a pass in V.H.S.E in Live Stock Management is the first among the two qualifications prescribed for being appointed as Live Stock Inspector Grade-II "by transfer". In the absence of such qualified persons, a pass in S.S.L.C or equivalent is the qualification. By an amendment, prescription of S.S.L.C was taken away. While matters stood so, P.S.C issued notification in the extra-ordinary gazette dated 27/3/2008 calling for applications for consideration for appointments, including "by transfer". The last date fixed for the application was 30/4/2008. The petitioners, who admittedly did not possess the qualification of V.H.S.E in Live Stock Management, applied. Their applications were rejected by the P.S.C. They came to this Court invoking the writ jurisdiction. They stated that the question whether S.S.L.C or equivalent should be re-introduced into the Rules, is a matter pending consideration with the Government. At the stage of admission, this Court exercised discretion and permitted them to participate in the test. That order categorically says that, in the normal course, such an interlocutory order would not have been issued. The learned single Judge reasoned to say that the pendency of the recommendation of the Director of Animal Husbandry for re-introduction of S.S.L.C as a qualification motivated that interlocutory order. Thereafter, that writ petition stood transferred to Kerala Administrative Tribunal on its constitution. In the meanwhile, the Government came out with an amendment introducing S.S.L.C retrospectively with effect from 27/03/2008, i.e., the date of the P.S.C notification. At the final hearing, before the Tribunal, the P.S.C took the stand that it would be impermissible to declare the results of the petitioners, who took the competitive examination on the basis of the interim order in the writ petition; because, they were persons who took a chance and applied and were found to be unqualified. It is not in dispute that they would continue to be unqualified but for the retrospective amendment re-introducing S.S.L.C as a qualification with effect from 27/03/2008. When a notification is issued by the P.S.C prescribing qualifications in terms of the Recruitment Rules that stood as on the date of the notification, that would attract aspirants for the posts. Therefore, if S.S.L.C was a qualification notified as the alternate qualification in the notification on 27/03/2008, there would have been a larger spectrum, market or zone, of competitors. We are not going by the numbers, but we are going by the principles that we can easily see that at least a group would have been excluded by truthfully keeping themselves away from applying, rather than taking a chance of making an application on the admitted situation of absence of qualification. Therefore, though the retrospective amendment to the Recruitment Rules would, technically, relate back to 27/03/2008, we can clearly envisage that there will be persons in the government service who would stand resultantly deprived of their opportunity. That cannot be ignored. We should also remember that the feeder category for 'by transfer' appointment lies spread out to the different departments in Government. Under such circumstances, the learned standing counsel for P.S.C is also justified in making reference to District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram and Another Vs. M.Tripura Sundari Devi [1990 (3) SCC 655] wherein the Apex Court has categorically stated that when the advertisement mentions a particular qualification, that has necessarily to be treated as governing the persons aspiring and within the field of choice. We, therefore, do not find any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned decision of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. The original petition fails.

In the result, this original petition is dismissed in limine.

sd/- (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)

sd/- (B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE)

AMV/19/3/


O.P. (K.A.T.) No. 993 of 2012 - Bindhu P. Vs. State of Kerala, 2012 (2) KLJ 583 : 2012 (2) KHC 501

posted May 24, 2012, 8:44 AM by Law Kerala   [ updated Jun 9, 2012, 8:11 AM ]

(2012) 248 KLR 875 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

 

PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR 

TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/30TH PHALGUNA 1933 

OP(KAT).No. 993 of 2012 (Z) 

--------------------------- 

TA.1569/2012 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 

-------------------- 

PETITIONER/APPLICANT : 

-------------------------------------- 

BINDHU.P, TINU DALE, NELLIKUNNU KARA, JUBILEE MISSION.P.O., THRISSUR. 
BY ADVS. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR 

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS : 

------------------------------------------------ 

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION (J) DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 
2. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.S.C.OFFICE, PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004. 
3. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE, THRISSUR-680001. 
R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ABDUL KAREEM P.S. R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC 

THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn 

"C.R" 


THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. 

-------------------------------------------- 

O.P.(KAT). No.993 OF 2012 

-------------------------------------------- 

Dated this the 20th day of March, 2012 

Head Note:-

Service Law - Reservation - The eligibility of a member of a community to claim a particular vacancy by reservation would arise only while applying the relevant quota and rota rules. Such quota and rota rules would apply only on the basis of the list of candidates who have been found eligible. 
Service Law - Change of recruitment rules before any appointment is effected, can necessarily change the course of selection procedure even if the selection process had commenced. An applicant for appointment to public employment has no vested right in defeasance of the employer's authority to modify the qualifications for appointment. Any change in the recruitment rule, before appointment, will regulate the selection process notwithstanding the qualification notified in the invitation of applications for recruitment.

JUDGMENT 


Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 


1. This original petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the decision rendered by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in T.A.No.1569 of 2012. 


2. The Public Service Commission invited applications to the post of High School Assistants in English. The qualifications prescribed were:- 

(i) Bachelors Degree or Post Graduate Degree in English Language and Literature and 
(ii) B.Ed./B.T with English as optional subject conferred or recognised by any of the Universities in Kerala. 

In the absence of candidates with B.Ed./B.T with English as optional subject, candidates with B.Ed/B.T in any other subject conferred or recognised by any of the Universities in Kerala will be considered. 


3. The petitioner claims that she is entitled to the benefit of reservation in favour of SIUC Nadar Community. She competed in the written test and was among those shortlisted. In the ultimate round, she was not selected. 


4. The petitioner does not possess B.Ed./B.T with English as optional subject. She possesses B.Ed. in Mathematics. Therefore, she would fall within the zone of consideration only in the absence of candidates possessing B.Ed./B.T with English as optional subject. However, the petitioner's argument is that in so far as SIUC Nadars are concerned, she was the only one who had found place in the supplementary list of the shortlist and she is the one eligible to the vacancy that will have to go to the SIUC Nadar Community. 


5. PSC's case is that there were enough and more number of successful candidates in the shortlist and supplementary list who possessed B.Ed./B.T with English as optional subject and therefore, they did not have to go for any candidate who possesses B.Ed./B.T in any other subject and whose eligibility for being considered would arise only in the absence of candidates with B.Ed./B.T with English as optional subject. 


6. The eligibility of a member of a community to claim a particular vacancy by reservation would arise only while applying the relevant quota and rota rules. Such quota and rota rules would apply only on the basis of the list of candidates who have been found eligible. Therefore, we do not find any legal infirmity in the refusal of PSC to treat the petitioner as eligible. 


7. Another contention of the petitioner is that Ext.P1(v) G.O.(P) No.2/2009 results in a modification of the statutory rules in KER only with effect from its date of publication i.e., 5.1.2009 and therefore, the PSC's notification issued for selection in 2006 cannot be controlled by that Government Order. Change of recruitment rules before any appointment is effected, can necessarily change the course of selection procedure even if the selection process had commenced. An applicant for appointment to public employment has no vested right in defeasance of the employer's authority to modify the qualifications for appointment. Any change in the recruitment rule, before appointment, will regulate the selection process notwithstanding the qualification notified in the invitation of applications for recruitment. By now, this position is well settled by precedents of the Apex Court and the different High Courts including this Court. This ground also fails. 


8. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the Tribunal. The original petition fails. 


In the result, this original petition is dismissed in limine. 


THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN (Judge) 

C.T. RAVIKUMAR (Judge) 

spc/ 20.3. 


O.P. (K.A.T.) No. 1010 of 2012 - Sasikala T.V. Vs. Kerala Public Service Commission, 2012 (2) KLJ 573 : 2012 (2) KHC 441

posted May 4, 2012, 7:04 AM by Law Kerala   [ updated Jun 9, 2012, 7:38 AM ]

(2012) 249 KLR 316

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM 


PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN 

THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2012/2ND CHAITHRA 1934 

OP(KAT).No. 1010 of 2012 (Z) 

---------------------------- 

AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA.166/2012 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER IN O.A: 

------------------------------- 

SASIKALA T.V., D/O.CHAPPUNNI T.V., AGED 27 YEARS, KALAMANDIRAM HOUSE, PORUR POST, VANIYAMBALAM VIA MALAPPURAM -679 339. 
BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ 

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN O.A: 

--------------------------------- 

1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004. 2. THE REGIONAL OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REGIONAL OFFICE, KOLLAM - 691 001. 
BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC 

THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

APPENDIX 

PETITIONER'S EXTS: 

  • EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.2.2012 IN O.A. NO.166 OF 2012 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 
  • EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM IN O.A. NO.166/2012. 
  • ANNEXURE A2 : TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 21.11.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. 
  • ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE NOTIFICATION WHICH APPEARED IN MATHRUBHUMI THOZHIL VARTHA.
  • EXT. P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.17767/2011. 

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

O.P.(KAT) No. 1010 of 2012 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2012 

Head Note:-

Public Service Commission - the petitioner did not write her name or enter the date of photographing, on the photograph which was printed and uploaded while submitting the application on-line - PSC rejected that application - Held, such conditions have been made with a view to prevent impersonation and ensure fairness in the conduct of examination. Such conditions cannot be taken as insignificant especially in the light of reported incidents. No legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the decision of the Tribunal.  
Public Service Commission - the petitioner sought a clarification that this judgment may not preclude the petitioner from moving the PSC for any relief. Held, Petitioner does not have the right to make any such request to the PSC, since the question has been concluded here and PSC will not be within its authority to go beyond the views expressed in this judgment. 
J U D G M E N T 

"C.R." 


Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J, 


The petitioner applied for selection on the basis of a notification issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission. Clause No.1(a)7 of that notification required that the application shall include a photograph taken within a period of six months of the application and with the name of the applicant and the date of the recording of the photograph written on that photograph. Admittedly, the petitioner did not write her name or enter the date of photographing, on the photograph which was printed and uploaded while submitting the application on-line. KPSC rejected that application. The petitioner's challenge against that stands turned down by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. In doing so, the Tribunal has followed the unreported judgment dated 4.7.2011 of a learned single Judge of this Court (Mr.Justice C.T.Ravikumar) in W.P.(C). No.17767 of 2011. Hence this original petition by her. 


2. Arguing that the KPSC would be well within its authority to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to cure the defect, since the date of examination has not been announced, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision reported in Manojkumar v. KPSC [1999(2) KLT 534]. 


3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the KPSC, we see that the decision in Manojkumar (supra) was rendered in a case where the challenge was against the action of the KPSC extending opportunity to rectify the defects. As noted by the learned single Judge in that case, KPSC had granted opportunity to rectify what it termed as 'minor defect' to all candidates who had committed such minor defects. But in the case in hand, if we were to treat the non-mentioning of the identity of the person and the date on which photograph is taken on the photograph as a minor defect, the very concept of the word 'minor' as an adjective to the word 'defect' would be lost sight of. The two crucial requirements are that the name of the person and the date of photographing shall be written on the photograph. The need for the mentioning of the name of the person is to identify the applicant. The date on which the photograph was taken has to be mentioned. That is for the purpose of ensuring that the photograph was taken within a period of six months before the application. Either way, we are unable to see that the said defect can be passed off as a minor one. We are of the view that the ratio in Manojkumar (supra) does not apply to the facts in this case.


4. Adverting to the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 17767 of 2011, we find that clause No.1(a)7 has been pointedly considered and it has been rightly held that such conditions have been made with a view to prevent impersonation and ensure fairness in the conduct of examination. In our view, the learned Judge was justified in saying that such conditions cannot be taken as insignificant especially in the light of reported incidents. We affirm the view expressed in W.P.(C) No.17767 of 2011. 


5. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the decision of the Tribunal. 


6. Ultimately, learned counsel for the petitioner sought a clarification that this judgment may not preclude the petitioner from moving the KPSC for any relief. Petitioner does not have the right to make any such request to the KPSC, since the question has been concluded here and KPSC will not be within its authority to go beyond the views expressed in this judgment. 


In the result, this Original Petition fails and the same is dismissed in limine. 


Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Judge 

P. Bhavadasan, Judge 

sb. 


1-4 of 4