Dismissed

Dr.Smitha Suresh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Jan 2020OP(KAT)/273/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Kerala judgment dismissed a challenge against a Tribunal order rejecting an original petition where a candidate failed to upload a photograph with embedded name and date. The Court held that the defect was not cured by an interim interview order and distinguished cited precedents involving technical glitches.

What did the court decide?

Original petition dismissed; no order as to costs.

Dr.Smitha Suresh Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | 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

FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 27TH POUSHA, 1941

¶7

OP(KAT).No.273 OF 2019

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 94/2019 DATED 22-03-2019 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶9

PETITIONER/S:

¶10

DR.SMITHA SURESH AGED 41 YEARS W/O.DEEPAK, RESIDING AT KANJIRATHINKAL HOUSE, MANNAMKANDOM P.O., ADIMALY, IDUKKI-685 561.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY KUM.A.ARUNA KUM.THULASI K. RAJ SMT.RIYA RAYMOL IYPE

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TECHNICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶14

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

¶15

R2 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UNIVERSITY

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SR.GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH

¶18

THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

O.P.(KAT) No.273 of 2019

¶20

-2-

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Dated this the 17^th day of January, 2020

¶23

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶24

The petitioner challenges the order of the Tribunal rejecting the original application. The challenge before the Tribunal was against Annexure A10 letter which intimated the petitioner that her photograph was not uploaded with name and date and hence, she has failed to comply with the stipulation to record those details in the photograph affixed with the application. The Tribunal found that the PSC bulletin specifically carried the guidelines for one time registration and it is mandatory on the part of the candidates to ensure that the application is uploaded in the manner prescribed. The Tribunal, hence, rejected the prayer.

¶25

When the original petition was pending, the

¶26

O.P.(KAT) No.273 of 2019

¶27

-3-

¶28

petitioner was issued with an interview card. In such circumstances, we directed the learned Standing Counsel to

¶29

get instructions as to whether the defects stood cured or were found to be non existent. The learned Standing Counsel informed us that there was an interim order passed on 8.3.2019 by the Tribunal, directing the applicant to be participated in the interview. The Chairman had acted upon that interim order, without noticing the fact that the Tribunal had, later, on 22.5.2019 rejected the original application itself. We do not think that the mistake committed by the PSC in having interviewed her, despite the defect in the application should inure to the candidate, if in truth the application was defective. We have to keep in mind that in permitting a person who had made a defective application to be participated in a selection process; who is prejudiced, is the candidate aspiring to be selected in that vacancy in the

¶30

O.P.(KAT) No.273 of 2019

¶31

-4-

¶32

very same selection or the next selection which party cannot be at all identified at this point of time. Admittedly the notification is to fill up a NCA vacancy (No Candidate Available) in the selection originally carried out for appointment.

¶33

On facts, it is to be noticed that the petitioner had applied for the post of Head of Section (Computer Hardware and Maintenance). The uploaded application did not have the photograph as prescribed, with the name and date. The necessity for having the date on the photograph is to ensure that it is a recent one, so as to enable proper identification of the candidate at the time of the written test and the interview as also the appointment, if eventually advised.

¶34

We also have to notice that the name and date, as

¶35

prescribed has to be embedded in the photograph, and it is that photograph which is to be uploaded. The photograph, at

¶36

O.P.(KAT) No.273 of 2019

¶37

the time when it is taken has to have the said details. The

¶38

name and date cannot be entered at the time when the application is uploaded. We say this specifically, since the petitioner's case is that due to a technical glitch, the photograph was not uploaded properly. If the photograph had the date and name embedded, there is no reason why, on uploading, the same should be effaced. If at all it was so, then, there would not have been a complete photograph as is seen at Ext.R2(c). That is, the uploaded photograph would have shown a blank at the place where the details were embedded.

¶39

The petitioner's contention is also that she had applied for two selections. One with respect to the subject selection and the other with respect to HSST Computer Science- Junior. As far as the HSST selection is concerned, the gazette notification came on 30.8.2017, which is evident

¶40

O.P.(KAT) No.273 of 2019

¶41

-6-

¶42

from the application produced at Ext.R2(b) as downloaded from the site of the PSC. In the present selection, the application is seen at Ext.R2(c). Both these applications do not have the name or date on the photograph appended therein. The petitioner contends that with respect to the HSST selection, she downloaded the application and found the defect on 18.1.2018, which was later rectified. That contention cannot be countenanced, since the last date for application in the earlier notification would have been long prior to the last date in Annexure A8 notification (the subject selection), which itself was on 3.1.2018. There is also nothing produced with respect to the earlier notification, to substantiate that there, she had been participated in the entire process, on the rectification made, after the last date of application.

¶43

In any event, the petitioner admits that after the

¶44

O.P.(KAT) No.273 of 2019

¶45

-7-

¶46

application is uploaded, there could have been a print out taken of the application to verify its correctness. Hence, within the last date, every candidate should ensure, by taking a print out of the uploaded application that the same is in the prescribed manner. This obviously was not done and

¶47

the allegation of technical glitch is only an afterthought to get over the defect of having uploaded a photograph without name and date; as is specifically prescribed.

¶48

We also see that the petitioner had later, on 18.1.2018; after the last date of the notification relevant to this case, uploaded a photograph with the name and date, as seen from Ext.R2(d). This however cannot be acted upon in the subject selection, since the last date was over, prior to the uploading. In fact, the uploaded photograph with the name and date provides validation to our finding that if the photograph attached to the initial application had the name

¶49

O.P.(KAT) No.273 of 2019

¶50

-8-

¶51

and date and it stood effaced on being digitally uploaded, there would not have been a complete photograph displayed in the application form as is seen at Exts.R2 (b) and(c).

¶52

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decisions in Harikrishnan M.P. v. State of Kerala and others [O.P.(KAT) No.137 of 2019] and Secretary, KPSC v. Radha S. [O.P.(KAT) No.53 of 2018]. We see a

¶53

substantial distinction on facts from the two decisions. Both

¶54

these decisions arose from an identical selection wherein the NET qualification of many candidates did not get uploaded due to a technical glitch; which fact was later acknowledged by the PSC itself and remedial action taken. The decisions were on the aspect of the remedial measures having inured only to a few; which was frowned upon by the Court and directions issued in the case of all such defective applications. We do not think either of the decisions apply

¶55

O.P.(KAT) No.273 of 2019

¶56

-9-

¶57

in the facts of the present case. Here though technical glitch

¶58

is claimed there is no specific averment to that effect and we have already found that there could not be any such ground taken here. The photo uploaded, if had embedded in it the date and name, it would not have displayed the full image of the person as is seen from the downloaded application. The attempt of the petitioner is to mislead with a deliberate falsehood, which we deprecate but do not say anything further.

¶59

The original petition, hence, would stand dismissed.

¶60

No order as to costs.

¶61

Sd/-

¶62

K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

Scl/17 . 01.2020 xxx

O.P.(KAT) No.273 of 2019

¶67

-10-

¶68

APPENDIX

¶69

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶70

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.05.2019 IN O.A.NO.94/2019.

¶71

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF O.A.NO.94/2019 TOGETHER WITH ANNEXURES.

¶72

EXHIBIT P2 (A1) TRUE COPY OF THE FACULTY OF ENGINEERING CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY MANONMANIAM SUNDARANAR UNIVERSITY ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT REG. NO. 9853760 DATED 13.3.2002.

¶73

EXHIBIT P2 (A2) TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT BY THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION DATED 12.7.2018 FOR THE YEAR 2001.

¶74

EXHIBIT P2 (A3) TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT BY THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION DATED 12.7.2018 FOR THE YEAR 2002.

¶75

EXHIBIT P2 (A4) TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT BY THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION DATED 12.7.2018 FOR THE YEAR 2003.

¶76

EXHIBIT P2 (A5) TRUE COPY OF THE MASTERS DEGREE ISSUED BY ANNA UNIVERSITY, CHENNAI TO THE APPLICANT REG. NO. 96206405016/RG DATED DECEMBER, 2008.

¶77

EXHIBIT P2 (A6) TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT BY SREE NARAYANA GURUKULAM COLLEGE OF

¶78

O.P.(KAT) No.273 of 2019

¶79

-11-

¶80

ENGINEERING, KOLENCHERY, ERNAKULAM AND DULY ATTESTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION DATED 16.7.2018.

¶81

EXHIBIT P2 (A7) TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY BHARATHIAR UNIVERSITY, COIMBATORE TO THE APPLICANT WITH FOLIO, D 02258 DATED 11.1.2018. EXHIBIT P2 (A8) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION OF THE POST OF HEAD OF SECTION COMPUTER HARDWARE MAINTENANCE WITH CATEGORY NO. 502/2017 DATED 29.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 (A9) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 8.11.2018. EXHIBIT P2 (A10) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER REJECTING THE CANDIDATURE OF THE APPLICANT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 12.12.2018. EXHIBIT P2 (A11) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF O.A. 1090/2015 (KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL REPORTER VOLUME -5 (2016) PART I PAGE 250 TO 252 DHANYA K.R.V. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION) DT. 8.4.2016. EXHIBIT P2 (A12) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A. 1095/2015 DATED 24.5.2016 OF THIS HONBLE TRIBUNAL. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 08.03.2019 IN O.A.NO.94/2019. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION OF INTERVIEW PROGRAMME FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 2019, DATED 02/09/2019 ISSUED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY, KPSC.

¶82

O.P.(KAT) No.273 of 2019

¶83

-12-

¶84

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERVIEW LETTER DATED 9.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AS DOWNLOADED FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE KPSC. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROFILE OF THE PETITIONER WHICH SHOWS THAT THE DATED AND NAME ARE SHOWN IN THE PHOTOGRAPHS AS DOWNLOAD FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE KRSC. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE SCREEN SHOT OF THE PROFILE OF THE APPLICANT. TRUE COPY OF THE UNDERTAKING SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. IN IA DATED 2/11/2019. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE UNDATED MEMO (WITHOUT DATE) ISSUED BY THE PSC. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST NO. 630/19/SS VI ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY KPSC.

¶85

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶86

EXHIBIT R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTO (UPLOADED ON 08/01/2017 OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT R2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DETAILS OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT R2(C) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DETAILS OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT R2(D) TRUE COPY OF THE UPLOADED THE PHOTO OF THE PETITIONER DATED 0N 18/01/2018.

Dr.Smitha Suresh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Smitha Suresh v. State of Kerala

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

C.Thampu Vs S.K.Anandakrishnan

Mathews Paul.K, Vs the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

Kerala Public Service Commission Vs Ramyamol.P.C

M.Vijayan Vs Union of India

State of Kerala Vs a. Batheruneza

Sudha T.K. Vs the Superintendent