AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mohammed Nias.C.P, J
Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.05.2022 dismissing WP(C)No.19083 of 2021, that was filed by the appellant inter alia for a direction to the first respondent to issue print out of the answer scripts of the petitioner in the departmental test for the purpose of declaration of probation/promotion, this appeal is filed.
The short facts necessary for the disposal of the writ appeal are as follows:-
The appellant is working as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the second respondent-Academy. The first respondent-Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) invited applications for the departmental test as mentioned above by notification dated 1.7.2020, in which the appellant appeared for nine papers. In the meanwhile, since the appellant's services were terminated, she filed WP(C)No.21385 of 2020 questioning the same, in which there was initially an interim order of stay and finally the writ petition was allowed holding that the termination was bad for violation of the principles of natural justice. The fact regarding the appellant's termination was intimated by the second respondent to the first respondent, as a result of which when the result of the departmental test was published on 1.3.2022, the appellant was shown to have failed in seven papers and the result of the other two papers were withheld. Being dissatisfied with the result, the appellant applied for re-checking of her marks within the time stipulated. On re-checking also there was no difference in the marks and the appellant then requested for issuing print out of her answer scripts on 24.5.2021, which was admittedly beyond the time of 30 days prescribed for making such a request. The second respondent rejected the request by Ext.P9 holding that the application of the appellant was beyond time. This action of the Public Service Commission was challenged in the writ petition.
The learned single Judge found that since the results were published on 1.3.2021, which fact is known to the appellant on the basis of which she had requested for re-checking of the marks within time, the application for getting the copy of the answer of the script ought to have been made within 30 days from the date of publication of the result, since the application was made only on 24.5.2021, the same was belated and accordingly rejected the contention of the appellant. The learned single Judge also rejected the contention of the appellant that 30 days time had to be reckoned from the date of publication of the result of the re-checking of marks. The argument of the appellant that she was prevented from submitting an application for obtaining the answer script due to the lock down imposed was also found to be factually wrong as the lock down was imposed only with effect from 8.5.2021, and on these grounds the writ petition stood dismissed.
In the appeal before us, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant thought of making a request for getting a copy of the answer script after awaiting the result in her request for re-checking and thus time for making the request for answer scripts should start only from the said date. Alternatively, it is argued that due to Covid pandemic and the lock down imposed and considering the special circumstances, the PSC ought to have treated the application as filed within time and given her the copy of the answer scripts. We are not in a position to accept the argument of the appellant on any of these reasons. As rightly found by the learned single Judge the appellant made an application only on 24.5.2021, when the results were published on 1.3.2021. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner had submitted an application for re-checking the marks on 30.3.2021, which is within 30 days from the date of publication of the result. Appellant had also produced Ext.P11 result notification. Clause 6 of which clearly showed that those applicants desirous of obtaining copies of the answer scripts should submit an application remitting the requisite fees within 30 days of the publication of the result. It is the further stipulation that any application received beyond 30 days will not be entertained
That being so, there is nothing illegal in Ext.P9 order of rejection by the PSC and the contention that, lock down was imposed during the pandemic, therefore, the application ought to be treated to be one within time also cannot be accepted as lock down was imposed only from 8.5.2021. The 30 days period stipulated for submitting the application in question having expired on 31.03.2021, the appellant cannot take the advantage of lock down imposed on 8.5.2021. On the admitted facts, no relief can be granted to the appellant. We find no infirmity in the judgment of the learned single Judge.
The appeal lacks merit, and is accordingly dismissed.