Allowed

Kerala Public Service Commission v. Ann Sharon Noronha

Kerala HC6 Nov 2019OP(KAT)/90/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the Tribunal order rejecting an applicant's candidature for a vacant post. The Court found the identification card surrendered at the exam lacked a watermark and clear photo. Despite invoking res judicata, the Court held the applicant downloaded a compliant copy for the challenge, allowing rejection due to suspicion of impersonation attempts and carelessness. The Tribunal

What did the court decide?

Set aside the Tribunal order and dismissed the application filed before the Tribunal; parties left to pay their respective costs.

Kerala Public Service Commission Vs Ann Sharon Noronha — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 15TH KARTHIKA, 1941

¶7

OP(KAT).No.90 OF 2018(Z)

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 2484/2017 DATED 28-11-2017 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶9

PETITIONER/S:

¶10

1 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THULASI HILLS, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004, KERALA.

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT OFFICER DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION KOTTAYAM, KERALA-686004.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

ANN SHARON NORONHA W/O.JOSE STEEVESON RODRIGUES, AGED 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOTTAPURATHU HOUSE, PARK JUNCTION, MAVELIKARA, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA-690101.

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.VARGHESE R1 BY ADV. SMT.L.ANNAPOORNA

¶16

THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

OP(KAT).No.90 OF 2018 ..2..

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

VINOD CHANDRAN,J.

¶20

The original petition is filed by

¶21

the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC),

¶22

challenging the order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) at Ext.P2, which set aside the order of the PSC. The impugned order was passed in compliance with the order in the earlier O.A produced at Annexure-A15, which directed fresh consideration of the issue.

¶23

We need to briefly state the

¶24

facts for the purpose of a complete adjudication of the issue. The applicant applied under Annexure-A1 Notification, which called for applications to the post of 'Statistical Assistant Grade II/ Statistical Investigator Grade II/ Computer Operator Grade II' in the Department of Economics &

¶25

OP(KAT).No.90 OF 2018 ..3..

¶26

Statistics. That the applicant has the required qualifications is not in dispute. The applicant was issued with a provisional admit card and an Identification Certificate

¶27

(I.C.), the importance of the latter, as

¶28

submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC, we will soon notice. The applicant appeared for the examination with the I.C. filled up and as stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, another identity card, as stipulated.

¶29

When the results were published,

¶30

the applicant was not included in the rank list. On enquires made, it was found that the applicant's non-inclusion was by reason of a defect in the I.C. Annexures-A12 and A-

¶31

13 are communications issued by the PSC.

¶32

The defect noticed in Annexure-A12 was that the I.C. did not have the emblem of the PSC

¶33

OP(KAT).No.90 OF 2018 ..4..

¶34

(watermark) and the photograph was not as

¶35

per stipulation. The petitioner challenged the rejection of her candidature before the

¶36

Tribunal by O.A No.2067 of 2015. The petitioner's contention was that the

¶37

petitioner's father had simultaneously downloaded the I.C. from the website of the PSC and he took two copies, one of which was produced as Annexure-A2. Annexuxre-A2

¶38

contained a clear picture and also the watermark of the PSC. The Tribunal hence

¶39

directed the PSC to re-consider the case of

¶40

the applicant. It was also directed in Annexure-A15 that the original of the I.C

¶41

would be produced by the applicant before the PSC. The ground raised for rejection of candidature, of defect in photograph was

¶42

held against the PSC looking at the photograph in Annexure-A2, which is the

¶43

OP(KAT).No.90 OF 2018 ..5..

¶44

document retained by the applicant and not

¶45

produced at the venue of the exam.

¶46

The PSC considered the issue

¶47

further and passed Annexure-A16 order produced along with the O.A. In Annexure-

¶48

A16, they reiterated their earlier grounds for rejection. On challenge before the Tribunal, Ext.P2 set aside Annexure-A16 order. On consideration of the materials produced, the Tribunal held that earlier itself it was found that the ground that the photograph lacks clarity was unsustainable.

¶49

As far as the second defect, the Tribunal found that in the earlier instance, the PSC was directed to afford an opportunity to the applicant and to verify the I.C available with the candidate and the PSC and if the

¶50

photographs were clear in those identification certificates, then the

¶51

OP(KAT).No.90 OF 2018 ..6..

¶52

non-appearance of watermark in the

¶53

certificate retained by the PSC would not be held against the applicant. It was held that

¶54

the PSC had issued the order in a

¶55

perfunctory manner, without complying with the directions in the earlier order of the Tribunal. The petitioner was also stated to

¶56

have been not afforded an opportunity to produce the I.C. retained by her before the PSC. There was also no comparison of the certificate retained by the PSC with the certificate available with the applicant,

¶57

was the finding entered into by the Tribunal.

¶58

It was observed that 59 marks

¶59

were obtained by the applicant in the OMR

¶60

examination; in which selection, the

¶61

applicant had the benefit of communal reservation, wherein the next candidate in

¶62

OP(KAT).No.90 OF 2018 ..7..

¶63

the very same community had only 17 marks. One vacancy for Latin Catholics was directed to be set apart till the issuance of final orders by the 1^st respondent. Later, there

¶64

was an order passed in the petition for

¶65

implementation filed before the Tribunal, in which the 1^st respondent was directed to be present on the next posting date. Exts.P3 and P4 were challenged before this Court by the PSC.

¶66

The learned Standing Counsel for

¶67

the PSC argued first that the I.C is a crucial document; the very basis of the identity of the candidate, in the selection as also the further appointment, which document is also retained for the entire service of the employee. The I.C. issued by

¶68

the PSC has to be surrendered to the Invigilator at the time of examination,

¶69

OP(KAT).No.90 OF 2018 ..8..

¶70

which verifies the identity of the candidate. It is the basic document of reference to verify the identity of the candidate at the time of interview and at

¶71

the time of appointment, when the candidate appears before the appointing authority producing the advice issued by the PSC. In fact, along with the advice list sent by the PSC to the appointing authority, the I.C of all the candidates advised are also sent, which is verified on the candidate reporting for duty. It is also maintained in the service records of the candidate till his

¶72

retirement.

¶73

The learned Standing Counsel also

¶74

points out that the applicant in the O.A had specifically averred that there were two hall tickets downloaded by her father for the purpose of examination; as was

¶75

OP(KAT).No.90 OF 2018 ..9..

¶76

Notification, it is pointed out that there

¶77

was no such stipulation in the Notification

¶78

and if the candidate downloads more than one, it is for the candidate to produce the

¶79

one as stipulated by the PSC. We were invited to the specific stipulations in the notification and the general instructions with respect to the photograph as also the watermark. It is contended that Annexure-A2 might have been the second copy downloaded by the applicant and the first copy which is produced as Ext.P5 was surrendered before the Invigilator. It is pointed out that the PSC conducts verification of the identity

¶80

cards only after a person is selected and is entitled to be placed in the rank list. If

¶81

there is any defect in the I.C, it throws suspicion on the identity of the person who

¶82

OP(KAT).No.90 OF 2018 ..10..

¶83

appeared for the exams. The candidate is not included in the rank list. The importance of a clear photograph is emphasized by the learned Standing Counsel, which is to ensure that there is no impersonation at the time of examination or interview.

¶84

The learned Counsel appearing for

¶85

the applicant asserts that, in fact, there were two downloads made on the very same day, one of which was surrendered before the Invigilator. He maintains that it was one similar to Annexure-A2. It is also submitted that the PSC cannot now challenge Exts.P2 order of the Tribunal in the O.A, especially since on the question of I.C, the Tribunal had ruled authoritatively by Annexure-A15, which was not challenged by the PSC.

¶86

We will first deal with the

¶87

contention of the present proceedings, being

¶88

OP(KAT).No.90 OF 2018 ..11..

¶89

hit by resjudicata . We look at Annexure-A15 order and find that the Tribunal had misdirected itself insofar as directing the production of the original I.C before the

¶90

PSC. It is on the basis of the clear

¶91

watermark and photograph seen from Annexure-A2, that the Tribunal issued Annexure-A15. In fact there was no question of producing the original since it is that

¶92

signed by the candidate before the Invigilator at the venue of the exam and surrendered. Any other I.C, which could at any time be downloaded from the website cannot be called the original. Annexure-A3, Admission Ticket (provisional), by clause (4) provides that: “candidates should put their signature beneath the declaration in the identification certificate in the presence of the Assistant Superintendent/

¶93

OP(KAT).No.90 OF 2018 ..12..

¶94

Invigilator. They should also put their

¶95

signature against their names in the address list provided in the examination hall” (sic). Hence what can be considered as

¶96

original is only the I.C, which was signed

¶97

in the presence of the Invigilator/Assistant Superintendent.

¶98

We also directed production of the I.C surrendered before the Invigilator, which on verification is similar to Ext.P5. Ext.P5 is admitted even by the appellant to be the true copy of the I.C surrendered

¶99

before the Invigilator. Having seen the

¶100

original, we are convinced that it is not similar or identical to Annexure-A2.

¶101

Annexure A-2 also bears the signature of the candidate and if it were signed before the Invigilator there is no possibility of it being copied and produced here. Obviously

¶102

OP(KAT).No.90 OF 2018 ..13..

¶103

the applicant has produced one another downloaded I.C after signing it. In such

¶104

circumstances, we do not find any ground of resjudicata to disable the PSC from

¶105

challenging the present order passed by the Tribunal.

¶106

discrepancies in the details filled up, of place and date and also address in Annexure-

¶107

A2 and Ext.P5. However, that may not be material since the applicant presumably

¶108

would have filled up both identification certificates at different times. It is also the submission of the learned Counsel that there was absolutely no bad intention and before entering into the examination hall, possibly the candidate would have taken the original of Ext.P5, which did not have a watermark nor a photograph as stipulated by

¶109

OP(KAT).No.90 OF 2018 ..14..

¶110

the PSC.

¶111

As far as the stipulations for

¶112

the photograph is concerned, the general conditions are relied on, which speaks of

¶113

so:

¶114

(1) The photo uploaded should be in colour/Black & White. The face and shoulder of the candidate should be clearly visible.

¶115

(2) Images should have 200 pixels height, 150 pixels width and with a file size of not exceeding 30 kb, in JPG format.

¶116

(3) The back ground of the photograph should be white/light coloured.

¶117

(4) Face should be centrally focussed.

¶118

(5) The eyes should be open and vivid.

¶119

(6) Photograph wearing cap goggles, (except cap viel worn in adherence to religious custom), photographs showing a portion of the face, photo with unclear face shall not be accepted.

¶120

produced by the learned Counsel for the PSC

¶121

OP(KAT).No.90 OF 2018 ..15..

¶122

that the photograph is not as stipulated nor is the watermark available in the original

¶123

I.C. We take note of the submission of the learned Standing Counsel that a photograph which is not clear may lead to impersonation at the examination even if there is another

¶124

identity card produced by the applicant, which is also a stipulation in Anneuxre-A3. The I.C forms the basic document of

¶125

reference for the entire selection process, verifying the identity of the candidate.

¶126

We further directed the

¶127

Commission to verify as to the down loads made by the applicant only to ensure that the applicant is not deliberately submitting

¶128

a falsehood so as to get away from the liability of having not produced the proper I.C before the Invigilator.

¶129

OP(KAT).No.90 OF 2018 ..16..

¶130

The learned Standing Counsel for

¶131

the PSC has produced the details of the

¶132

access made to the profile of the applicant and the downloads made, which indicates that downloads of admit card were made thrice on 03.09.2012, one on 04.09.2012 and twice on 01.12.2012. Admittedly the date of

¶133

examination scheduled was changed once. In such circumstance, evidently, the applicant or her father downloaded many admit cards

¶134

along with I.C and filled them up, but however produced the one, which had a vague

¶135

photograph and the watermark was also

¶136

absent. In such circumstance, we cannot find fault with the PSC for having excluded the applicant from the rank list. We do not also discern a deliberate falsehood having been submitted by the applicant though it is

¶137

evident that the applicant in her

¶138

OP(KAT).No.90 OF 2018 ..17..

¶139

desperation to be appointed has produced Annexure A-2 as being identical to the one she surrendered at the examination venue.

¶140

Obviously they differed drastically as has

¶141

been demonstrated by the production of the

¶142

original I.C surrendered at the venue of

¶143

exam, the identical copy of which is

¶144

produced as Ext. P5. We perfectly agree with the rejection of her candidature and accept the apprehension expressed by the PSC; which has the duty to ensure that no foul play occurs at any stage of the selection. We

¶145

make it clear that we have not made any

¶146

aspersions against the applicant but even if

¶147

it is by sheer carelessness that the

¶148

defective I.C was surrendered it raises a

¶149

suspicion grave enough to reject the

¶150

candidature itself; for reason of the

¶151

magnitude of the selections made by the PSC.

¶152

OP(KAT).No.90 OF 2018 ..18..

¶153

We on the above reasoning, set aside

¶154

the orders of the Tribunal impugned herein and also dismiss the O.A filed before the Tribunal. Parties are left to suffer their

respective costs.

Sd/-

K.VINOD CHANDRAN

JUDGE

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE

SB/07.11.2019

OP(KAT).No.90 OF 2018 ..19..

¶164

APPENDIX

¶165

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶166

EXT.P1	TRUE COPY ANNEXURES	OF THE O.A NO.2484 OF 2017 WITH
ANNEXURE	TRUE COPY	OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION FOR
A1	CATEGORY RESPONDENT	NO.253/2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST .
ANNEXURE A2	TRUE COPY RETAINED B	OF THE IDENTIFICATION CERTIFICATE Y THE APPLICANT.
ANNEXURE	TRUE COPY	OF THE IDENTIFICATION CERTIFICATE
A3	ISSUED BY CHULLIYIL.	THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO SMT. SAJINA
ANNEXURE A4	TRUE COPY POST OF ECONOMICS	OF THE SHORT LIST PUBLISHED FOR THE STATISTICAL ASSISTANT GRADE-II IN AND STATISTICS DEPARTMENT.
ANNEXURE A5	TRUE COPY REPORT VII	OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.ENQUIRY (1)4802/12/EW DATED 26/04/2014.
ANNEXURE A6	TRUE COPY 4802/12/EW	OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.ER.VII(1) DATED 22/12/2014.
ANNEXURE	TRUE COPY	OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.ENQUIRY
A7	REPORT V	II(1)4802/12/EW DATED 09/02/2015
	PUBLISHED RESPONDENT	IN THE WEBSITE OF THE 1ST .
ANNEXURE A8	TRUE COPY ISSUED BY	OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 25/05/2015 THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE	TRUE COPY	OF THE RANKED LIST FOR THE POST OF
A9	STATISTICA AND STATIS	L ASSISTANT GRADE II IN ECONOMICS TICS DEPARTMENT.
ANNEXURE	TRUE COPY	OF THE OMR EXAMINATION MARK OF THE
A10	APPLICANT 1ST RESPON	AS PUBLISHED ON THE WEBSITE OF THE DENT ON 23/07/2015.
ANNEXURE	TRUE COP	Y OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
A11	24/07/2015 2ND RESPON	SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE DENT.

¶167

OP(KAT).No.90 OF 2018 ..20..

¶168

ANNEXURE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.KV(4) 2011-13 DATED A12 27/07/2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. ENQUIRY A13 REPORT VII(1)4802/12/EW DATED 09/02/2015 REFERRED TO IN ANNEXURE-A12. ANNEXURE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE A14 1ST RESPONDENT IN OA NO.2067/2015 BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL. ANNEXURE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/11/2016 OF A15 THIS HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL OA NO.2067/2015. ANNEXURE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.KV(4)2011/13 DATED A16 30/03/2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.IDSA17 11(3)/4777/2017/GW DATED 25/09/2017 ISSUED BY THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE TRUE COPY OF THE FILE NOTINGS ISSUED ALONG A18 WITH ANNEXURE A17. EXHIBIT TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A.NO.2484/2017 P2 DATED 28-11-2017. EXHIBIT TRUE COPY OF THE M.A.NO.62 OF 2018. P3 EXHIBIT TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN M.A.NO.62/2018. P4 EXHIBIT TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTIFICATION CERTIFICATE. P5 EXHIBIT TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTIFICATION CERTIFICATE. P6

¶169

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶170

EXHIBIT R1 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF PSC BULLETIN DATED 01/08/2011. // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE

Kerala Public Service Commission v. Ann Sharon Noronha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kerala Public Service Commission v. Ann Sharon Noronha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Kerala Public Service Commission Vs Kalpana Lawrance

Secretary to Government, Home Department Vs Kerala Administrative Tribunal

M.C Valsala Vs State of Kerala

Sivadasan, Vs Retnamma

N.Viswambharan Vs the Chief Engineer (Electrical), Thiruvananthapuram

V.S.Sinil Vs the State of Kerala