(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. 

"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.