Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015/16TH SRAVANA, 1937
WA.NO. 399 OF 2015 () IN WP(C).26937/2014
------------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 26937/2014
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 13-11-2014
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
-----------------------1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
KERALA PUBLICSERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.
2. THE SECRETARY
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REGIONAL OFFICE
ERNAKULAM (NEAR SOUTH RAILWAYSTATION
EASTERN ENTRY TOWER) - 682 035.
BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:
------------------------ROSHINI K.S
D/O.SHANKARAN NAMBOOTHIRI, W/O.RAJESH E.M.
EDAPILLY MANA, SOUTH VAZHAKULAM, ALUVA
ERNAKULAM - 683 105.
R1
R1
C.R
ASHOK BHUSHAN, C.J.
and
A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.
====================================
W.A. No.399 of 2015
====================================
Dated this the 7th day of August, 2015
JUDGMENT
Writ
against the
has
The
petitioner.
The
photo uploaded
-: 2 :-
was
notified
on
08.06.2013.
Petitioner
and identification
The
her
photograph
with
name
and
date.
published
by
the
list of successful
Commission
on
letter dated
-: 3 :-
The 2nd
verification of
Rank list
was
Category
published
by the
Commission
for
i)
this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and necessary in the facts
and circumstances of the case.
-: 4 :iii)
3.
was 15.12.2010
the
with the
and
-: 5 :-
she
could
have
easily
submitted
the
It is stated that at
verified she
the information in
the information in
-: 6 :-
The
photograph
Learned Single
appropriate
place.
-: 7 :-
the
Commission
rejecting
the
-: 8 :-
He submitted that
conditions
He submitted that
in the
submissions
of
the
Writ Petitioner
learned
Standing
Ext.P1 notification
-: 9 :-
It is
Single Judge
It
the
-: 10 :-
circumstances
major defect
by the Commission.
It is
It is
by
the
petitioner
contained
the
date
after
-: 11 :-
was fully
Candidates who
petitioner
19.03.2015 due to
shall
be
referred
to
while
considering
the
submissions in detail.
8.
-: 12 :-
I.
on record
Whether
the
learned
Single
Judge
9.
Petitioner's categorical
-: 13 :-
Though it is
portion of the
The
-: 14 :-
10. Though
the
Commission
filed
counter
In paragraph 7 the
From
the
above
facts
it
is
clear
that
in the
ranked list.
-: 15 :-
was
specific
and
unambiguous
instructions
prove
The learned
effect:
The
-: 18 :-
have been
the said
requirement was
Notification
an online
-: 19 :-
which has
that
regarding
is
-: 20 :-
8.
even in this
learned
recorded by the
-: 21 :-
be made to suffer on
which
has
been
highlighted
by
the
been
taken
after
31.12.2010
whereas
the
difference
There is no
Learned
in
Sasikala
v.
Kerala
Public
Service
-: 22 :-
1.
In the above case the petitioner did not write her name
or enter the photograph on the basis of which
the
-: 23 :-
3.
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
-: 25 :-
The only
15.12.2010.
18. In this context one more fact which needs to
be noted
following:
4)
photograph.
verification
of documents
In the
-: 26 :-
2.
case
There cannot
be any dispute
to
the ratio
of the
As noted by the
nor
there
is
any
allegation
any
of
impersonation.
20. Other
-: 28 :-
of the
Commission
was
justified
in
rejecting
the
T. C. Basappa v.
-: 29 :-
Rule 3
The State
even
what
is
regarded
as
mandatory
has also
1 SCC
by the Commission
Application
finding that
the
allowed
the
claim
against
which
the
Court
dismissed
the
appeal
filed
by
the
-: 31 :-
shall
entail
there
has to be
Although on
as required in the
by
which
justice
has
injustice has
Learned Single
in favour of the
been meted
out.
Roshan Deen v.
ASHOK BHUSHAN,
CHIEF JUSTICE.
A.M. SHAFFIQUE,
JUDGE.
vsv