Partly allowed

Kerala Public Service Commission v. Prasanth K

Kerala HC8 Nov 2019WA/1385/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the writ appeal against advising a candidate. While justifying the KPSC's rejection of a relinquishment due to signature differences, the Court directed a fresh advice to the petitioner because both he and the relinquishing candidate are partially blind.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal rejected; KPSC directed to issue fresh advice to the petitioner within one month.

Kerala Public Service Commission Vs Prasanth K — Pension and Retirement Benefits | 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

FRIDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1941

¶7

WA.No.1385 OF 2019

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 32263/2017(G) DATED 21.06.2018 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶9

APPELLANT/S:

¶10

KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶11

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

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 PRASANTH K, AGED 34 YEARS S/O.VIJAYAN.K., PRASANTH NIVAS, PUNNAD P.O., IRITTY, KANNUR-670 703.

¶14

2 KERALA STATE BEVERAGES

¶15

(MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING), CORPORATION LIMITED, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶16

3 ANU.M.M., SUGANDHAGIRI, CARDAMOM PROJECT, SUGANDHAGIRI P.O., VYTHIRY VIA, WAYANAD-673 576.

¶17

R1 BY ADV. ADV.D.AJITHKUMAR R2 BY ADV. STANDING COUNSEL R3 BY ADV. ADV. T. MANASI

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

[WA No.1385/2019] 2

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

K.VINOD CHANDRAN.J.

¶22

The Kerala Public Service Commission

¶23

(KPSC) is in appeal against the judgment in

¶24

a writ petition. The impugned judgment directed the petitioner in the writ petition to be advised, as against the relinquishment

¶25

made by the 3^rd respondent in the writ petition.

¶26

Sri.P.C.Sasisdharan, the learned

¶27

Standing Counsel for KPSC argues that the signature in the relinquishment letter and the admitted signature as available in the Identification Certificate (I.C) differs.

¶28

Ext.P11 is the relinquishment letter and

¶29

Ext.R1(a) is the I.C and we discern

¶30

considerable difference.

¶31

The appellant takes us through

¶32

Rule 18(ii) of the KPSC Rules of Procedure

¶33

[WA No.1385/2019] 3

¶34

(for short 'Rules of Procedure), which

¶35

requires a relinquishment to be made in writing giving his/her full address and

¶36

signature, duly attested by a Gazetted Officer. The KPSC had rejected the request of relinquishment as per Annexure-A2 dated 01.03.2016, which was also communicated by Annexure-A1. It is submitted that when the relinquishment has been rejected, there can be no claim that the particular candidate should be overlooked for advising the next available candidate. It is also pointed out that the 3^rd respondent was the 11^th rank holder and the petitioner was included as 11A on orders of this Court in a writ petition. It is pointed out that many instances have

¶37

occurred where the relinquishment was

¶38

received by the KPSC, which later was disowned by that candidate. It is also

¶39

[WA No.1385/2019] 4

¶40

pointed that any such permission granted

¶41

would result in bartering of posts, which

¶42

cannot be entertained by the KPSC, which

¶43

handles recruitment all over the State to

¶44

public services; the magnitude of which is specifically stressed by the learned Senior

¶45

Counsel to sustain the action. It is

¶46

submitted that if every action of the PSC is interfered with on technical grounds then it will cause mayhem and result in the entire selection process being reviewed at every juncture which is not desirable.

¶47

Sri. D.Ajithkumar, the learned

¶48

Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits

¶49

that he was not aware of the relinquishment.

¶50

However, only on a subsequent enquiry he

¶51

learnt that the 3^rd respondent has

¶52

relinquished his claim, despite which he was issued with an advice. The petitioner also

¶53

[WA No.1385/2019] 5

¶54

has a contention that Annexures-A1 and A2 were produced in the writ appeal was not produced before the learned Single Judge. Smt.T.Manasi, the learned Counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent also submits that he had not received the communication, rejecting his relinquishment.

¶55

that the three signatures available in the records differ considerably. But, since the candidate is partially blind, there need not

¶56

be too much relevance given to the said aspect. We also add that even in the

¶57

rejection of the KPSC, it is stated that the

¶58

signature is not fully drawn in the relinquishment letter. Considering the fact that the candidate is a partially blind person, we are of the opinion that too much

¶59

relevance need not be placed on the

¶60

[WA No.1385/2019] 6

¶61

difference in signature. But however, we accept the contention of the KPSC that the KPSC was not at fault, especially considering the magnitude of the selections they make and their anxiety to ensure a fool-proof method without any complaints from any quarters. There is also the difficult task of weeding out fake relinquishments so as to not deny the opportunity to employment rightfully due to a candidate.

¶62

In the present case, though there

¶63

is a contention raised that the order

¶64

rejecting the relinquishment has not been communicated, we do not think that such a ground be held against the KPSC, especially since the KPSC has despatched the rejection order, which is evident from the extract of the despatch register produced as AnnexureA1. We also observe that the dispute as to

¶65

[WA No.1385/2019] 7

¶66

whether the 3^rd respondent has actually received the communication of rejection of relinquishment is insignificant, since even if he received it there is no reason for him

¶67

to challenge it. We also do not think that any bartering of posts took place in the present case, especially since the rejection of relinquishment was not challenged immediately by any of the parties.

¶68

In the present case, a partially

¶69

blind candidate had relinquished his right to

¶70

be advised in a rank list, where he had position No.11. The person, who is included in rank No.11A is also partially blind. Though the KPSC was justified in rejecting

¶71

the relinquishment, before us the 3^rd respondent has also appeared through Counsel and submitted that relinquishment, in fact, was made by him. In the above circumstances,

¶72

[WA No.1385/2019] 8

¶73

especially considering the fact that both the

¶74

petitioner and the 3^rd respondent are differently abled, we are of the opinion that

¶75

the advice should be made in the name of the petitioner. We also take into consideration the facts (i) that the advice itself was made after the expiry of the rank list, to a vacancy reported prior to the expiry of rank list and (ii) that if within the period of rank list, this writ petition was considered, there would have been no infirmity in the learned Single Judge having issued such order. On the above reasoning, we direct that a fresh advice be issued to the petitioner in the writ petition with the same date as the one issued to the 3^rd respondent, which directions are issued only in the facts arising in the present case.

¶76

[WA No.1385/2019] 9

¶77

The writ appeal is rejected,

¶78

directing compliance within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Parties to suffer

¶79

their respective costs.

Sd/-

K.VINOD CHANDRAN

JUDGE

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

SB/08/11/2019 JUDGE

¶86

[WA No.1385/2019] 10

¶87

APPENDIX

¶88

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶89

ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF THE DISPATCH REGISTER EVIDENCING THE SENDING OF THE COMMUNICATION.

¶90

ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF REJECTION MEMO ISSUED BY THE COMMISSION DATED 01.03.2016.

¶91

RESPONDENTS EXTS:

¶92

// TRUE COPY //

¶93

P.A TO JUDGE

Kerala Public Service Commission v. Prasanth K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kerala Public Service Commission v. Prasanth K

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

C.P.Thomas Vs Union of India

K.P.Ambika Vs State of Kerala

Shirly P.Fernandez Vs State of Kerala

P.T.Jayan Vs the Coffee Board

Union of India, Vs K.K.Gopalakrishnan

Molly @ Rema Vs v.K.Vijayan