Briefly stated, the petitioner, a B.Tech. graduate, in response to Exhibit P1 notification, submitted an application for the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical). Later, in course of time, the petitioner was issued with Exhibit P2 admission ticket (provisional). As could be seen from clause (11) of Exhibit P2, there was a stipulation that scanned image of the photograph on the admission ticket shall bear the name of the candidate as well as the date of the photograph and that otherwise the candidate shall not be admitted to the examination. 2. Having realised that the petitioner omitted to affix his name apart from mentioning the date of the photograph in the scanned image of the photograph while initially submitting the application, the petitioner submitted Exhibit P4 representation seeking indulgence of the first respondent to permit him to write the examination. Apprehending that his request will not be considered by the first respondent, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that initially the petitioner had followed the procedure and affixed the name as well as the date on the face of the photograph, but later, in course of time when it was required to be updated with recent photograph, an inadvertent mistake was committed by the petitioner in not complying with the direction of affixing the name and date on the face of the photograph. According to the learned counsel, it is a minor defect which is condonable. Accordingly, he sought a direction to the respondent authorities to accept petitioner's Exhibit P4 representation and thereby permit him to participate in the selection process.
4. The learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent has strenuously contested the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner had initially uploaded the photograph properly, but later, only when it was periodically updated, the omission occurred. In that regard, the learned Standing Counsel has drawn my attention to Exhibit P2, which bears the photograph of the petitioner without any name or date across the face of it. The learned Standing Counsel has further submitted that affixure of name and mentioning of the date on the face of the photograph are mandatory and any failure on the part of the candidate in this regard will result in summary rejection of the application. He has also submitted that on scores of occasions, this Court has consistently held that the requirement of affixing the name and date on the face of the photograph are mandatory and cannot be diluted. In this regard, the learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance on Sreejesh Vijayan v. State of Kerala (2014 (1) KLT 1003).
5. On a perusal of Sreejesh Vijayan (Supra), which was rendered based on Sasikala v. Kerala Public Service Commission (2012 (2) KLT 585), it is clear that the issue presently raised by the petitioner stands squarely covered by the ratio laid down in the above two cases.
6. Accordingly, since those judgments are rendered by a learned Division Bench of this Court, this Court is bound to follow the ratio laid down therein. In fact, the learned Division Bench has held that any omission in mentioning the name and date across the face of the photograph at the time of uploading it is a major defect which cannot be cured.
In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent, this Court dismisses the writ petition as being devoid of merit. No order as to costs.
Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge tkv