Dismissed

Anitha Thankachi v. Kpsc

Kerala HC8 Mar 2016WA/1828/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench disposed of a writ appeal challenging the dismissal of a petition seeking inclusion in a bank selection rank list. The Court upheld the Single Judge's view that adequate publicity was given to the probability list via newspapers and their website, negating a claim of non-receipt of notice.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed upholding the judgment of the Single Judge.

Anitha Thankachi Vs Kpsc — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/18TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶7

WA.No. 1828 of 2010 ( ) IN WP(C).9160/2010

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 9160/2010 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 26.5.2010

¶9

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:

¶10

ANITHA THANKACHI,D/O.VIDHYADHARAN, AGED 32 YEARS, SINI NIVAS, KERALAPURAM PERUMPUZHA PO, KOLLAM.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SRI.LEO GEORGE

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶13

KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE KOLLAM.

¶15

THE POST MASTER,PERUMPUZHA POST OFFICE, KOLLAM.

¶16

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC R3 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL

¶17

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

sou.

¶19

ASHOK BHUSHAN, CJ & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J -------------------------------------------------------------W.A. No. 1828 of 2010

¶20

--------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 8^th day of March, 2016

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

Shaffique, J

¶23

This writ appeal has been filed by the petitioner in W.P(C) No.9160 of 2010 challenging judgment dated 26.5.2010, by which the writ petition was dismissed. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner seeking for a declaration that the exclusion of the petitioner from the probability list published by the Commission for selection to the post of Clerk/Cashier in Kollam District Co-operative Bank is illegal and arbitrary and for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to afford the petitioner an opportunity to produce her original documents to prove date of birth, community, qualification, service etc. for inclusion in the rank list.

¶24

The short facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that a notification was issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) inviting applications for the post of Clerk/Cashier in the District Co-operative Bank. The petitioner

¶25

W.A.1828/10 2

¶26

also was one of the applicants. According to her she was not aware of the probability list published by the KPSC and therefore she was unable to produce all her credential certificates for scrutiny. She came to know about the same only during the first week of March, 2010 by which time she made enquiries and it was understood that the final rank list had already been published. According to her she was not informed about the preparation of probability list and final rank list and she was not given an opportunity to produce the original documents and hence the writ petition was filed.

¶27

Counter affidavit has been filed by the KPSC inter alia stating that after conducting the written test for selection, the probability list was published on 9.12.2009, which was notified in the website of KPSC and a press release was issued, which was published in Malayalamanorama as well as Mathrubhoomi daily on 19.12.2009. The candidates were also required to attend the personal verification of the qualification certificates on the designated dates between 21.12.2009 and 22.12.2009. It was stated that individual memos were also sent to these candidates which is evident from the Despatch Register of the KPSC. It was stated that the rank list was finalised by the Commission with effect from 28.1.2010 and the rank list has

¶28

¶29

W.A.1828/10

¶30

been expired. The writ petition was filed only on 15.3.2010.

¶31

Learned Single Judge after having considered the rival contentions observed that since the KPSC had issued necessary intimations by virtue of publication as well as individual notices, there is no reason to come to a conclusion that notice was not given to the petitioner. It is stated that if the petitioner was vigilant, she could have taken follow up action on the press release or the publication of the probability list. Accordingly the writ petition has been dismissed.

¶32

Learned counsel for the appellant while impugning the judgment submitted that Ext.R1(b) relied on by the respondent ought not have been considered on account of the fact that it does not disclose as to whether the memo was actually issued to the petitioner. Ext.R1(b) only indicates that certain verification memo has been issued to certain candidates does not mean that memo was issued to the petitioner. That apart it was contended that there is no mention in the notification that the probability list would be published and if so the petitioner could have waited for the same.

¶33

Having regard to the aforesaid submission, it is submitted that learned counsel for the KPSC that all necessary precautions had been taken by the KPSC especially when

¶34

¶35

W.A.1828/10

¶36

thousands of candidates have applied for the post and as per the judgment in KPSC v. Aruna. R & Others [1997 (1) KLJ 143] , the Division Bench after considering the relevant aspects held that it is enough that memos are sent by ordinary post. It is stated that it is practically impossible to sent memo by registered post with acknowledgment due to lakhs of candidates who appear for the examination conducted by the KPSC. The learned Single Judge also had relied upon the judgment in Aruna.R (supra) to arrive at the conclusion that there is no reason to take a different view.

¶37

Having heard learned counsel on either side and having perused the records, we do not think that any error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in arriving at the above conclusion. It is relevant to note that the existence of the probability list was made known by publication in the website as well as in newspapers. As rightly pointed by the learned Single Judge, if the petitioner was vigilant she could have come to know about the existence of the probability list, even though as claimed by her, she had not received the memo.

¶38

Having regard to the fact that learned Single Judge did not think it necessary to interfere with the selection process,

¶39

¶40

W.A.1828/10

¶41

we do not think that any ground has been made out to interfere with the judgment by exercising appellate jurisdiction. Learned Single Judge had relied upon the relevant facts to arrive at the said conclusion. Therefore, we do not think it necessary to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

¶42

Accordingly the writ appeal is dismissed.

¶43

Sd/ASHOK BHUSHAN CHIEF JUSTICE

¶44

Sd/A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶45

sou.11/3.

¶46

// True copy //

Anitha Thankachi v. Kpsc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anitha Thankachi v. Kpsc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.S.Ajayakumar Vs the Commissioner

Sulaikha Vs Geologist

P.X.James Vs State of Kerala

Thaikkakath Fareedha Vs State of Kerala

C.Remadevi Vs Secretary to Government

J.B.J.Plantations Vs State of Kerala