Dismissed

Asish Prem. S v. the Secretary

Kerala HC8 Jan 2020OP(KAT)/1/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala Administrative Tribunal dismissed a petition challenging the rejection of candidature for Junior Health Inspector Grade-II. The court held the Tribunal was right to reject the claim of a technical website flaw, as the petitioner failed to claim equivalent qualification before the deadline and did not notify the flaw in the original application.

What did the court decide?

The original petition filed before the High Court was dismissed.

Asish Prem. S Vs the Secretary — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2020)

¶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 08TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 18TH POUSHA, 1941

¶7

OP(KAT).No.1 OF 2020

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 2402/2016 DATED 16-10-2019 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶9

PETITIONER/S:

¶10

ASISH PREM. S AGED 30 YEARS VIJAYA BHAVANAM, PONMANA P.O. CHAVARA, KOLLAM, 691 583.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.JACOB P.ALEX SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX SRI.P.SATHEESH KUMAR (S-3441) SHRI.MANU SANKAR P.

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM PALACE P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA 695 004.

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, PSC

¶16

THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

OP(KAT).1/2020

¶18

¶19

K.VINOD CHANDRAN & V.G.ARUN, JJ.

¶20

O.P(KAT).No.1 of 2020

¶21

Dated this the 8^th day of January, 2019

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Arun, J.

¶24

The petitioner had approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, aggrieved by rejection of his candidature for the post of Junior Health Inspector Grade-II in the Health Services Department in Malappuram District, notified by the Kerala Public Service Commission as per Annexure A1. Being successful in the written test, the petitioner's name was included in Annexure A5 shortlist. Annexure A6 is the verification certificate issued to the petitioner after production and perusal of his original certificates. It was thereafter that the PSC issued Annexure A7 letter, rejecting the petitioner's candidature for the reason that he had claimed the essential qualification of Diploma in Health Inspector Course after the last date for receipt of applications. The original application was thereupon filed seeking to set aside Annexure A7 and for a direction to consider the petitioner's application and allow

¶25

him to appear for interview to the post of Junior Health Inspector Grade-II and to include him in the ranked list.

¶26

¶27

OP(KAT).1/2020

¶28

The Tribunal had granted an interim order dated 25.10.2016, allowing the petitioner to participate in the interview subject to further orders. Though the petitioner was allowed to participate in the interview on the strength of the interim order, his name was not included in the ranked list published on 30.11.2016.

¶29

The main of ground of challenge raised before the Tribunal was that, having included the petitioner's name in the select list and after having verified his original certificates, including the Certificate in Health Inspector Course, the PSC should not have rejected the petitioner's candidature on the specious reason that the petitioner had, while submitting his application, omitted to mention his qualification of Diploma in Health Inspector Course. A vague averment was made in the grounds to the original application, that the process of inviting applications through one time registration had only started during the period when the petitioner submitted his application and hence there was some difficulty in uploading the application.

¶30

The PSC countered the contentions of the petitioner through their reply statement, paragraphs 9 and 10 of which are extracted here under:

¶31

OP(KAT).1/2020

¶32

¶33

“9. In this case the petitioner applied for the post by claiming SSLC as equivalent/higher qualification to the Health Inspector Course. When a candidate applies for a post through online, the required qualifications are never automatically copied to the application. The system compares qualifications entered in the profile with the required qualification of the post and allow submission of applications automatically, if it matches. Here the qualification of Health Inspector Course was not entered in the profile before the submission of application. The applicant has submitted application by claiming SSLC as equivalent/higher qualification to Health Inspector Course.

¶34

10. Mode of submitting application states that before applying for a post candidates should register as per one time registration. Candidates can view, rectify defects and print details in the registration card by checking the link 'Registration Card'. Applications which are not submitted in accordance with the instructions given in the website will be summarily rejected. Candidates are required to acquaint themselves with the instruction given in the notification (General conditions) and website for filling up the application form. They will not get any opportunity to rectify any mistake in the application later.”

¶35

The petitioner filed a rejoinder before the Tribunal,

¶36

wherein, for the first time, a contention was raised that from 1.1.2012 onwards there was a technical flaw in the website of the PSC, resulting in the entry regarding essential qualification being entered as 'not claimed' in the online applications.

¶37

¶38

OP(KAT).1/2020

¶39

Placing reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in O.A.No.1659 of 2015, as affirmed by this Court in O.P(KAT).No.53 of 2018 ( Secretary, KPSC v. Radha S. ), it was contended that the PSC having admitted of a technical flaw in its website, based on which relief was granted to similarly situated candidates, the original application is liable to be allowed.

¶40

By the impugned order, the Tribunal dismissed the original application finding that the order in O.A. No.1659 of 2015 and the judgment in Radha , were rendered under entirely different circumstances. The Tribunal noted that the petitioner had not entered the essential qualification of Diploma in Health Inspector Course in his application, though he had acquired the qualification long back. Further, there was not even a feeble suggestion in the original application that the petitioner could not upload the qualification due to the defect in the website of the Commission. It was also noticed that the ranked list was published long back and advices were also made from the said list.

¶41

Heard Sri.Jacob P. Alex, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC and Sri.P.N.Santhosh Kumar, learned Senior Government Pleader.

¶42

¶43

OP(KAT).1/2020

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the issue is covered by the judgment of this Court in Radha , though the notification therein and the instant case are different. It is pointed out that in Radha , the issue was with regard to a technical glitch in the PSC website, resulting in the candidates being unable to upload their NET qualification. The PSC itself admitted that there was a technical issue and by its Decision No.14 dated 26.12.2016, had decided to accept the applications on condition of the candidates proving their qualification at the time of certificate verification. The benefit of Decision No.14 was not extended to certain candidates since the interview for the subjects for which they had applied was completed before decision No.14 was taken by the Commission. The candidates who were thus denied the benefit of decision No.14 filed O.A.No.1569 of 2016 alleging discrimination and unreasonable classification. The challenge was upheld by the Tribunal. Aggrieved, the PSC filed O.P(KAT).No.53 of 2018. This Court, on a perusal of the original files leading to decision No.14, found that the PSC itself had acknowledged that during the period from 1.1.2012 to June, 2016, a technical flaw, in the form of a wrong entry showing the qualification as 'not claimed' had occurred while uploading

¶45

¶46

OP(KAT).1/2020

¶47

the applications on the website of the PSC and it was in those circumstances that decision No.14 was taken by the PSC. Hence, this Court held that denial of the benefit of decision No.14 to some candidates, on the sole ground that interview to the posts to which they had applied was over before decision No.14 was taken, amounted to discrimination and unreasonable classification. The original petition was consequently dismissed.

¶48

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Annexure A1 notification was also issued between the period between 1.1.2012 and June, 2016 and the only presumable reason for not entering the essential qualification in the application was the technical glitch in the PSC website. To a pointed question by the Court as to whether such a contention was raised in the original application, the learned counsel drew attention to the following sentences in ground B;

¶49

“The process of inviting applications through one time registration started during this period. So, there was some initial difficulties in uploading the applications.”

¶50

According to us, this vague averment is not sufficient to hold that in spite of the applicant having entered the essential qualification in his application, the same was not

¶51

¶52

OP(KAT).1/2020

¶53

recorded in the application due to a technical flaw. The learned counsel also relied on the contentions in the rejoinder filed before the Tribunal. The contentions raised for the first time through the rejoinder cannot be accepted and a reading of the rejoinder shows that the contentions are moulded in terms of the findings in Radha . More importantly, even in the rejoinder the petitioner has no definite pleading of having entered his essential qualification in the application. The absence of that crucial pleading assumes relevance in the light of the specific contention of the PSC that the petitioner had submitted his application by claiming SSLC as equivalent/higher qualification to the essential qualification of Diploma in Health Inspector Course.

¶54

In Radha , the candidates had brought the technical flaw in the PSC website to the notice of the PSC immediately, the enquiry regarding which culminated in decision No.14. On the other hand, the petitioner never had such a complaint. Decision No.14 dated 26.12.2016 is to the effect that in cases where claim regarding equivalent/higher qualification is submitted before the last date for submission of applications and if during the certificate verification it is proved that the qualification was acquired prior to the last date, the

¶55

¶56

OP(KAT).1/2020

¶57

applications could be accepted. The ranked list in the petitioner's case having been published on 30.11.2016, before decision No.14, and the petitioner having failed to claim equivalent qualification prior to the last date of submission of the application, he is not entitled for the benefit granted under decision No.14 to the vigilant candidates, who had diligently pursued their cause.

¶58

Hence, we find no reason to interfere with the wellfounded order of the Tribunal. The original petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶59

Sd/-

¶60

K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE

¶61

Sd/- V.G.ARUN JUDGE

vgs x

OP(KAT).1/2020

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶67

EXHIBIT	P1	TRUE COPY OF THE O A NO. 2402 OF 2016 ALONG WITH ANNEXURE.
EXHIBIT	P1	A1 TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 31.12.2012.
EXHIBIT	P1	A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET DATED 12.08.2015.
EXHIBIT	P1	A3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM DISTRICT OFFICER, KPSC TO PRODUCE THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS DATED 26.06.2013.
EXHIBIT	P1	A4 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS DATED 03.07.2013.
EXHIBIT	P1	(A5) TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT LIST DATED 24.05.2016.
EXHIBIT	P1	(A6) TRUE COPY OF THE VERIFICATION CERTIFICATE DATED 22.07.2016.
EXHIBIT	P1	(A7) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER RECEIVED FROM THE DISTRICT OFFICER, STATING THE REJECTION OF APPLICATION DATED 05.10.2016.
EXHIBIT	P1	(A8) TRUE COPY OF THE INTERVIEW PROGRAM.
EXHIBIT	P1	(A9) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER SUBMITTED TO THE SECRETARY, KERALA SERVICE COMMISSION DATED 20.10.2016.
EXHIBIT	P2	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN OA NO. 2402 OF 2016.
EXHIBIT	P3	TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER AFFIDAVIT FIELD BY PETITIONER IN O A NO. 2402 OF 2016.
EXHIBIT	P3	(A10) TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST NO. 774/2016/SSII WITH EFFECT FROM 30.11.2016 BY THE RESPONDENT.

¶68

OP(KAT).1/2020

¶69

¶70

EXHIBIT P3 (A11) TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE ADVICE OF JUNIOR HEALTH INSPECTOR GR. II IN HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT IN MALAPPURAM DISTRICT BY THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 (A12) TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT CHART IN RESPECT OF JUNIOR HEALTH INSPECTOR GR. II IN HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT IN MALAPPURAM DISTRICT WITH DATED OF ADVISE 22.07.2019 BY THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST FOR THE SELECTION TO THE POST OF JUNIOR HEALTH INSPECTOR GRADE II (CATEGORY NO. 665/2012). EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN OA NO. 2402 OF 2016 DATED 16.10.2019. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO. 14 TAKEN ON 26.12.2016 BY THE KPSC.

Asish Prem. S v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asish Prem. S v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer Vs Sukumaran S.

Commissioner of Customs Vs M.K.Saseendran

Union of India Vs P. Padmakumar

Union of India Vs v.T.K.Nayanar

Lency.K.L Vs Sunil John Mathew

The Chief Post Master General, Vs M.K. Balakrishnan