Antony Dominic, J. 1. These original petitions are filed by the Kerala Public Service Commission, challenging the orders passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A.Nos.1148/13, 864/13 and 855/13 respectively.
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that on 31.7.2012, the PSC invited applications for the post of Assistant/Auditor in the various departments mentioned in the notification. Accordingly, a written test was conducted on 5.1.2013 at 1464 centres. In the written examination, about 279000 candidates appeared. Case of the PSC is that many candidates who did not comply with the instructions issued by them were not permitted to write the examination and even among those who appeared in the examination, answer scripts of about 5000 candidates were invalidated for the same reason.
3. The OAs in which the impugned order was passed by the KAT are applications filed by candidates whose answer scripts were invalidated for the reason that their identification cards did not contain the imprinted emblem of the PSC.
4. Before the Tribunal, it was contended by the applicants that the absence of the imprinted emblem in the identification card was not because of their fault. They also contended that there was no question of any impersonation or manipulation and that the defect, if any, was a minor one which should be ignored. According to them, they having been permitted to write the examination and since they have come out successful, the PSC was estopped from taking action against them, as done in these cases.
5. However, PSC contended that for various reasons, they have issued instructions to the candidates, which included one requiring the candidates to produce identification certificate containing imprinted emblem of the PSC and the Barcode. According to the PSC, these were cases where these instructions were not complied with by the candidates and that therefore, the PSC was justified in invalidating the answer scripts. Though the Tribunal has accepted the contention of the PSC that the absence of the imprinted emblem in the identification card amounted to non-compliance of the instructions issued, it took the view that such non-compliance could have been on account of the inexperience of the candidates regarding the new system introduced by the PSC. Finally, the Tribunal disposed of the OAs with the following directions:
“5. So, having regard to the special facts of this case, we think the Public Service Commission should consider whether the applicants could be included in Annexure A18 rank list notwithstanding the fact that identification certificate produced by them was defective for the reason that it did not contain the Emblem of the Public Service Commission. Of course, the Public Service Commission can verify with reference to the Barcode in their identification certificates whether the candidate concerned was the person who took the test. If upon verification it is satisfied that there is no impersonation or any such irregularity, the Public Service Commission may consider whether the applicants could be included in the final rank list published. We hope and trust that a constitutional body like the Public service Commission will take a just and fair decision. The decision in this regard may be taken within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. '
It is this order which is under challenge before us.
6. We heard the learned standing counsel for the PSC and the respective counsel appearing for the respondents who were the applicants before the Tribunal.
7. Both sides re-iterated their contentions and also relied on the judgments of this Court and the Apex Court about which we shall make reference in the course of this judgment.
8. The identification certificate contained the instructions which reads thus:
“Attention: Candidates should produce downloaded admission tickets bearing Barcode and Emblem of KPSC at the Examination Hall. Those who produce Identification Certificate without Barcode and Emblem, will not be permitted to write the examination. Candidates should occupy their seats allotted in the Examination Centre half an hour before the commencement of examination.”
(emphasis supplied)
9. Reading of the above shows that the candidates were required to produce downloaded identification cards bearing Barcode and emblem of the PSC. It was also directed that those who produce identification certificates without Barcode and emblem would not be permitted to write the examination. In other words, a candidate producing an admission ticket or identification certificate without either the Barcode or the emblem of the PSC was not entitled to appear for the examination. Admittedly, these are cases were candidates produced identification certificates without the emblem of the PSC. The question that arises for consideration is as to what can be the consequence of such non-compliance of the instructions issued by the PSC.
10. It is in the above context that the judgments relied on by the standing counsel for the PSC assume importance. The first is the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Varghese [ILR (1977) 1 Ker 523]. That was a case where, contrary to the instructions of the PSC requiring the candidates for a departmental test to produce the original chalan receipt, candidates produced only a certificate evidencing remittance of the fee. The rejection of their applications was challenged before this Court and against the judgment allowing the original petitions, appeal was filed by the PSC. Dealing with the contentions raised by both sides, the Division Bench held in paragraph 2 of the judgment as follows:
“2. It cannot be said and it is not said-that the Public Service Commission has no power to prescribe the condition that applications should be accompanied by the original chalan receipts. There is considerable difference between the production of the original chalan receipt and a certificate showing payment, for there will be only one original chalan receipt and there can be any number of certificates showing payment. Therefore if the Public Service Commission insists upon accompaniment of the original chalan receipt it cannot be said to be a requirement unreasonably specified by the Public Service Commission. It is not for this Court to go into this question further. If the Public Service Commission has prescribed this as a requirement, no-compliance therewith must result in rejection. The Public Service Commission cannot be expected to investigate further in a case where the application is not in compliance with the requirements notified to find out whether, nevertheless, the applicant should be permitted to sit for the test. We must not forget the fact that a body like the Public Service Commission is dealing with several thousands of applications and in screening these applications with a view to reject such of those as are not in accordance with the requirements notified the clerical staff of the Commission will have to be depended upon to do the job. The direction to entertain or reject applications ought not to be conferred on such a staff lest it may lead to abuse. Therefore it is only proper that the Public Service Commission lays down rules and directs strict enforcement of such rules. To expect the Public Service Commission either as a body or any of the members authorised in that behalf by the Commission to scrutinise all applications with a view to ascertain compliance with the requirements specified and investigate into the circumstances which result in default of compliance would be to expect the impossible. We do not think that it is fair to interfere in these matters unless it is shown that has been malafides in the conduct of the Commission or any of its Officers in the matter of rejecting application or there has been callousness or disregard of its own directions. If the circumstances indicate only a rejection of an application for non-compliance with the requirements specified by its own notification, merely because this Court feels it is unfortunate that the application happened to be rejected it may not be fair for this Court to direct the Public Service Commission to entertain the application. Of course the Public Service Commission has certainly power in appropriate cases to look into such matters and entertain applications if it finds that the circumstances justify such entertainment. But that discretion must be left to the Public Service Commission and the Public Service Commission cannot be compelled to exercise such discretion in any given cases.”
11. From the judgment in Rangaswamy v. Kerala Public Service Commission [1982 KLT 574], it appears that doubting the concurrence of the above judgment, the matter was referred to the Division Bench which reconsidered the matter and affirmed the view in the earlier judgment holding thus:
“8. With respect, we agree with the proposition laid down in the above decision. The Public Service Commission is bound by the conditions and stipulations contained in te Notification inviting applications. It will not be within the province of this Court to issue directions to the Commission to whittle down the rigour of the conditions and stipulations. The Commission will be within its rights in rejecting the applications, if the applications are not in strict compliance with the conditions and stipulations contained in the Notification. The Commission deals with large number of applications. Its staff has to sort the applications submitted in proper form process them and take follow up action. No discretion is given to the Commission or freedom to the staff to relax the conditions in the notification. Laxity in one case will leave open the blood gate of requests to condone irregularities or omissions. Such cases cannot be decided on sympathies or by extending other extinguishing considerations.”
12. Reading of the above two judgments rendered by two Division Benches of this Court would show that the PSC, which is entrusted with the constitutional duty of conducting selection to public services, are free to issue instructions and if those validly issued instructions are not complied with by the candidates, the consequence would be rejection of the candidature. It is also evident that once non- compliance with the instructions is established, the Court has no power whatsoever to interfere with the rejection.
13. The law having been settled by this Court in the judgments noticed above and as non-compliance of the instructions, viz., production of identification cards with emblem of the PSC, having been established in these cases, the Tribunal could not have interfered with rejection of the candidature or ordered further verification by the PSC, as done in these cases.
14. It is true that the learned counsel for the respondents relied on the judgment of this Court in Manoj Kumar v. Kerala Public Service Commission [1999(2) KLT 534]. However, that was a case where this Court upheld the action of the PSC in allowing the candidates to cure the minor defects in the applications made. Though it is true that the PSC may have power to do so, in these cases, the question is whether the KAT should have interfered with the action of the PSC in rejecting the candidature of persons who had not complied with the instructions of the PSC. In our view, the judgment relied on by the respondents does not help them to sustain the order of the Tribunal and in view of the principles laid down by the two Division Bench judgments noted by us, the Tribunal's order has to be set aside. We are, therefore, unable to sustain the order passed by the Tribunal.
Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal in OA.Nos.1148/13, 864/13 and 855/13 Will stand set aside. Original petitions are allowed accordingly.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge.
kkb.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, Judge.