AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.—The appellant is the writ petitioner. He was a candidate who applied for the post of Surveyor Grade II in the Department of Survey and Land Records of the Government of Kerala. The Public Service Commission held a written test and published a list in which the appellant found a place. So, he was called upon to appear in person, by Ext.P3, for verification of his certificates. At the relevant time, the appellant was employed in one of the Gulf countries and it was not possible for him to appear before the competent authority of the Public Service Commission on 6.8.2008, the date on which he was asked to appear. But his parents appeared and produced his certificates. But the Public Service Commission took the view that the appellant should appear in person and therefore, he was treated as a candidate who did not appear pursuant to Ext.P3 and so, was not included in the rank list. He was informed of that decision by Ext.P9. Challenging Ext.P9 and seeking consequential reliefs, the writ petition was filed.
The Public Service Commission filed a counter affidavit, in which it was stated as follows:
It is submitted that as per the mandatory conditions stipulated in the General conditions of the notification it was clearly stipulated that candidates should appear in person for verification of the original documents on the date, time and venue allotted by the Commission, at their own expense and there will be no relaxation on any circumstances, to the condition that candidates themselves should appear in person for verification of original documents. The inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the ranked list entertaining his request to consider his case as a special one, is against this condition.
Relying on the stand of the Public Service Commission that appearance in person is part of the general conditions of the notification, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal.
We heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. It is submitted that the general conditions of the notification do not contain any such stipulation. In support of that submission, Annexure I, copy of the notification issued by the Public Service Commission, was relied on. But we notice that Annexure I does not contain general conditions of the notification. Going by Ext.P3, we see that the candidate has been directed to appear in person. Since he did not appear in person, he was treated as absent. The point to be decided is whether the said view taken by the Public Service Commission is without jurisdiction or ultra vires or unauthorised. For an interview, normally, the candidate should appear in person. In this case, there is no interview. Therefore, this may be the only occasion for the candidate to appear in person before the Public Service Commission. In some of the certificates like SSLC book, there is the photograph of the candidate. So, the personal appearance of the candidate is necessary for his identification. Further, when Public Service Commission stipulates that the candidate should appear in person and he fails to do so, if the Commission takes the view that he will be treated as absent, it cannot be said to be illegal or perverse. If the Commission takes the view that appearance by somebody else is not sufficient, it cannot be said that the view taken by the Public Service Commission is arbitrary or irrational or something which no man in his senses will take. This view taken by the Public Service Commission is fully in accordance with the condition No. 12B of the General Conditions of the notification, which reads as follows:
12B. Candidates shall produce the original certificates for verification along with self-attested copies of the original certificates to prove their date of birth, educational qualification, experience, community etc. for the preparation of the ranked list as and when required by the Commission. Candidates shall appear in person for verification of the original documents on the date, time and venue allotted by the Commission, at their own expense. There will be no relaxation on any circumstances to the condition that candidates themselves shall appear in person for verification of original documents.
In view of the above position, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal. The personal inconvenience or such other matters pointed out by the appellant are beyond the scope of the enquiry in a case of this nature where the point is whether the Public Service Commission has acted within its powers. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed.