Dismissed

Sujala S Kumari v. Kerala Public Service Commission

Kerala HC13 May 2022WP(C)/19083/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an application for copies of answer scripts. Holding that the 30-day limit was mandatory, expired by ordinary course, and the subsequent lockdown could not validate the belated and fee-less filing. The plea for mandamus to compel acceptance was rejected.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; application for copies of answer scripts rejected.

Sujala S Kumari Vs Kerala Public Service Commission — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 23RD VAISAKHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 19083 OF 2021

¶5

PETITIONER/S:

¶6

SUJALA S KUMARI AGED 48 YEARS L.D.CLERK, KERALA SANGEETHA NATAKA AKADEMI,CHEMBUKAVU, TRICHUR-20, AGED 48 YEARS, D/O.DAMODARAN, SUSHAMA NIVAS, KOTTAMURI PO., THRIKKODITHANAM, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM-686 105 BY ADVS. T.B.MINI C.G.PREETHA DR.ABHILASH O.U.(K/000125/2019)

¶7

RESPONDENT/S:

¶8

1 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THULASI HILLS, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004 2 THE KERALA SANGETTHA NATAKA AKADEMI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHEMBUKAVU, TRICHUR-20, PIN-680 020 BY ADVS. P.C.SASIDHARAN S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY N.SANTHA V.V.VARGHESE PETER JOSE CHRISTO S.A.ANAND K.N.REMYA L.ANNAPOORNA VISHNU V.K. ABHIRAMI K. UDAY KURUVILLA SABU CHRISTY

¶9

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.04.2022, THE COURT ON 13.05.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶10

W.P.(C) No.19083 of 2021

¶11

-2-

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

Dated this the 13^th day of May, 2022

¶14

The petitioner is working as Lower Division

¶15

Clerk in the second respondent Kerala Sangeetha

¶16

Nataka Academy. The first respondent Kerala

¶17

Public Service Commission invited applications for departmental test for the purpose of

¶18

declaration of probation/promotion in the Gazette dated 01.07.2020. The petitioner appeared for 9 papers in the departmental test conducted from

¶19

10.10.2020 onwards. In the meanwhile, the petitioner's service was terminated, compelling her to approach this Court in W.P.(C) No.21385 of 2020. The fact regarding petitioner's termination

¶20

was intimated by the second respondent to the first respondent and as a result, when the result of the departmental test was published on

¶21

01.03.2021, the petitioner was shown to have failed in 7 papers and result of the other two papers withheld. Being dissatisfied with the

¶22

W.P.(C) No.19083 of 2021

¶23

-3-

¶24

result of the 7 papers, the petitioner applied for rechecking of her marks. As there was no change in rechecking result published on 22.04.2021, the petitioner submitted an online application on 24.05.2021, requesting the PSC to issue printouts of her answer scripts. The request was rejected by Ext.P9 stating that the application for copy of answer script/printout ought to have filed within 30 days of publication of the results. Aggrieved, this writ petition is filed.

¶25

Adv.C.G.Preetha, learned Counsel for the

¶26

petitioner, submitted that the petitioner has been subjected to victimisation by her superior officers as she is better qualified than most of them. This had resulted in the petitioner's service being terminated abruptly. By Ext.P2 judgment, her writ petition had been allowed, finding the order of termination to have been issued without affording opportunity of hearing

¶27

W.P.(C) No.19083 of 2021

¶28

-4-

¶29

to the petitioner, in spite of the termination being stigmatic. Learned Counsel alleges that the PSC had deliberately failed the petitioner at the instance of the second respondent, which fact will be evident on perusal of the answer scripts. Hence, the petitioner had applied for printouts of her answer scripts after publication of the result of rechecking of marks in the failed papers.

¶30

According to the learned Counsel, the 30 days time for submitting application has to be reckoned from the date of publication of the result of rechecking. If so, the application for copies of answer scripts was submitted within time. Alternatively it is contended that by the time the application for copies was submitted, lockdown had been imposed by the Government and considering that special circumstance the Public Service Commission ought to have accepted the online application, treating it to have been

¶31

W.P.(C) No.19083 of 2021

¶32

-5-

¶33

filed within time.

¶34

Adv.P.C.Sasidharan appearing for the

¶35

Public Service Commission took strong exception against the allegation of collusion and submitted that the first respondent is a constitutional body working under a set of laid down rules, fully insulated from any external influence. Learned Counsel explained that by letter dated 08.10.2020, the Secretary of the second respondent had informed that the petitioner was terminated from service and had no right to attend the departmental exams. By the time the letter was received, the petitioner had already appeared for the exam conducted on 10.10.2020 and hence, she was permitted to appear for the rest of the exams. Later, though the petitioner was required to produce relevant documents to prove that she is still working as an employee in the second respondent, she failed to do so. Hence, when the result of the

¶36

W.P.(C) No.19083 of 2021

¶37

-6-

¶38

departmental test was published on 1.03.2021, the petitioner's result was withheld. On 19.03.2021,

¶39

the petitioner submitted a representation along with the judgment in W.P.(C) No.21385 of 2020

¶40

and requested to release her results. Accordingly, the withheld results of two papers, in which the petitioner had passed, was published. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had submitted application for rechecking of marks of the 7 failed papers along with requisite fee on 30.03.2021. Based on the application, her marks were rechecked and the petitioner was informed that there is no change in her marks. Thereafter, the petitioner made a request for getting print out/photocopy of the 7 failed papers vide email dated 24.05.2020. The application was rejected finding the request to have been made beyond the time limit of 30 days, that too without remitting the requisite fees. As the time limit of 30 days

¶41

W.P.(C) No.19083 of 2021

¶42

-7-

¶43

is stipulated in the result notification itself,

¶44

the petitioner cannot feign ignorance. The second lockdown was imposed only in May 2021, by which time, the 30 days stipulated for submitting application for obtaining copies of the answer scripts was already over.

¶45

Adv.S.P.Aravindakshan Pillai appearing for the second respondent submitted that the allegation of victimisation raised by the petitioner against her superior officers are baseless. It is pointed out that this Court had interfered with the order terminating the petitioner's service only on the ground of denial of opportunity of hearing and in Ext.P2 judgment, liberty is granted to the second respondent to initiate fresh proceedings, if so warranted.

¶46

The question arrived for consideration is whether the petitioner was bound to submit application for obtaining copy/printout of the

¶47

W.P.(C) No.19083 of 2021

¶48

-8-

¶49

answer script within 30 days of publication of

¶50

her result. The fact that the result was published in the website on 01.03.2021 is not in dispute. The petitioner had also submitted application for rechecking of marks on 30.03.2021

¶51

viz; within 30 days of publication of the result. The petitioner herself has produced Ext.P11 result notification. Clause 6 of the notification require the applicants desirous of obtaining printout of answer scripts to submit their application after remitting requisite fees, within 30 days of publication of the result. It is specifically stated that the application received beyond 30 days will not be entertained.

¶52

One of the contentions raised by the petitioner is that the 30 days time has to be reckoned from the date of publication of the result of rechecking of marks. The said contention is liable to be rejected since the result notification provides for submission of

¶53

W.P.(C) No.19083 of 2021

¶54

-9-

¶55

applications for rechecking of marks and obtaining copies of answer scripts within 30 days of publication of result. The other argument is that the petitioner was prevented from submitting the application for obtaining answer scripts due to the lockdown imposed by the Government. It is seen that in 2021, the Government had notified lockdown only with effect from 6.00 a.m. of 08.05.2021, as per G.O(Rt) No.404/2021/DMD dated 06.05.2021. The 30 days period for submitting the application having been expired by 31.03.2021, the petitioner cannot bank upon the lockdown imposed with effect from 08.05.2021 to contend that her application ought to have been accepted. Added to this is the admitted fact that the petitioner had not remitted the requisite fees along with the online application submitted on 24.05.2021. Having failed to take requisite steps within the stipulated time, the petitioner cannot seek issuance of a writ of mandamus for

¶56

W.P.(C) No.19083 of 2021

¶57

-10-

¶58

compelling the first respondent to accept and process her belated application.

¶59

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶60

Sd/- V.G.ARUN JUDGE

¶61

Scl/

¶62

W.P.(C) No.19083 of 2021

¶63

-11-

¶64

¶65

PETITIO	NER EXHI	BITS
Exhibit	P1	TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT COMMISSION TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit	P2	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.21385 /2020 DATED 14.10.2020
Exhibit	P3	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED BY THE SANGEETHA NATAKA AKADEMIC TO THE RESPONDENT, OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RTI ACT
Exhibit	P4	TRUE COPY OF THE RESULT OF THE PETITIONER PUBLISHED BY THE RESPONDENT IN THE WEBSITE WITHHOLDING THE RESULT OF 2 PAPERS
Exhibit	P5	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT FOR PUBLICATION OF HER RESULTS
Exhibit	P6	TRUE COPY OF THE RESULT OF THE PETITIONER PUBLISHED BY THE RESPONDENT IN THE WEBSITE
Exhibit	P7	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT FOR RECHECKING THE 7 PAPERS
Exhibit	P8	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT FOR PRINTOUT DATED 24.5.2021
Exhibit	P9	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF PETITIONER DATED 8.6.21
Exhibit	P10	THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTEIM ORDER IN W.P. (C) No.21385 of 2020 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 09.10.2020
Exhibit	P11	THE TRUE COPY OF THE RESULT NOTIFICATION NO.DEI(1)1/1/2020-KPSC ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 01.3.2021

Sujala S Kumari v. Kerala Public Service Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujala S Kumari v. Kerala Public Service Commission

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

V.C.Mani Vs the Union of India

Selvaraj J.R. Vs State of Kerala

P. Aliyaru Kunju, Vs State of Kerala

Vasantha Kumari Vs Kerala Stae Council for Science

Dr.Raghunadhan C Vs Kerala State Council for Science Technology & Environment

M/S. Chand v Foods, Vs Leela John