High CourtsDivision Bench(2023) 11 KL CK 0150

Kerala Public Service Commission vs Lakshmi G

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 24 November 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
A.Muhamed Mustaque, J · Shoba Annamma Eapen, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Original Petition (Kerala Administrative Tribunal) No. 278 Of 2019

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 261 words

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J

1.

This original petition is filed by the Kerala Public Service Commission (for short “KPSC”), aggrieved by the order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal dated 19.03.2019 in O.A.No.2194 of 2014. The respondent herein, the applicant before the Tribunal submitted an application for the post of Junior Instructor (Fashion Technology) before the KPSC. However,the photo uploaded by the respondent was defective. As seen from the impugned order itself, the PSC gave an opportunity to all the candidates to cure the defect by 01.03.2014 and again by 01.03.2017 respectively. The respondent appears to have cured the defect as early as on 11.08.2013, much before the one time settlement scheme offered by the KPSC. On that ground, the application filed by the respondent was allowed by the Tribunal.

2.

KPSC questions the order of the Tribunal on the ground that whether a person who had uploaded defective photograph after the last date of receipt of application and did not avail OTS facility granted to the candidates for correction of mistake, is entitled to participate in the selection process. It is to be noted that the rank list has expired and the respondent was already adviced, and now appointed in service.

Taking note of fact that the respondent cured the defect much before the OTS facility, we are of the view that no interference is warranted in this matter. Accordingly, the Original Petition is dismissed.

This case is decided only on the fact that the defect was cured before the OTS scheme offered by the petitioner and not on any other ground.