K. M. Joseph, J. The petitioner is a member of the Scheduled Caste. He applied for the post of Lecturer in English in the Kerala Collegiate Education Department notified by the Public Service Commission vide Annexure- A4. The only defect noted is that the photograph uploaded in the online application does not contain his name and the date on which the photograph was taken. The petitioner was not permitted to participate in the interview. Accordingly, he filed O.A. No.1150/2013 before the Administrative Tribunal(hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short).
2. The petitioner was allowed to attend the interview by an interim order. After filing of the original application, selection process was completed and Annexures A14 and A15 rank lists were published. The petitioner had made one time registration with the Public Service Commission on 10/2/2012. Annexure A3 in Ext.P1, according to the petitioner, contains the specifications regarding the photograph to be uploaded by the candidates at the time of one time Registration. The case, in short, of the petitioner is that there is no such stipulation in Annexure A3 that the photograph thus uploaded should contain the candidate's name and the date of taking the photograph. The Tribunal did not find merit in the contention of the petitioner. Accordingly, it dismissed the original application purporting to follow the judgments of this court in Sasikala T.V. v. KPSC (20120 2 KLT 585) and O.P.(KAT) No.3233 of 2013.
3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the Public Service Commission. At the request of the Public Service Commission, we also called for the papers relating to O.P. ( KAT)3692/2013 wherein, it is pointed out, the documents were produced.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates his contention that as far as the stipulation in Annexure -A3 is concerned, it does not contain the condition that the photograph uploaded at the time of one time registration should contain the candidate's name and the date of taking the photograph. It is therefore contended that rejection of the petitioner's application on the said basis is impermissible.
5. The stand of the Commission is that there is an object sought to be achieved by insertion of name of the candidate and date of taking the photograph and that is to prevent fraud and impersonation. It is further pointed out that this has been insisted from the year 2010. One time registration was started with effect from 1/1/2012. The petitioner made one time registration on 10/1/2012. The learned counsel for the Commission would contend that in Exhibit R1(d) in O.P. (KAT) 3692/2013, the stipulation about the need to insert the name and the date was contained in a separate block. In response to this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that in Annexure A3, which is also seen published on the very same date as Ext. R1 (d), there is no such requirement. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that there is some confusion between the requirement to be complied with in respect of online application and in respect of one time registration. As far as one time registration is concerned, the requirements are clearly mentioned in Annexure- A3, corresponding to publication in Exhibit R1(d), where there is no such requirement. As far as online application is concerned, it is mentioned in a separate block that it should contain the requirements of name and date. Counsel would submit that the petitioner has also submitted online application and that the benefit of having one time registration, i.e. one does not has to upload the photograph again with the name and date as would be required in the case of a person making the online application without having one time registration, should be given to the petitioner. Counsel would point out that the whole object of having one time registration is to permit candidates to apply for various posts on the basis of the details entered in terms of the one time registration and that purpose would be defeated. Learned counsel would submit that insisting on the requirement, that the photograph should contain the candidate's name and the date of taking the photograph, was not there under one time registration's regime when the petitioner made the online application. Counsel would further submit that the Tribunal was in error in placing reliance on the judgment of this court where the facts are different.
6. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the Public Service Commission would then point out that actually apart from the bulletin, which is published by the Public Service Commission in Ext.R1(d) in O.P.(KAT) No.3692/2013 which we have referred to, there was an embedded requirement in the application for one time registration itself that the candidate's name and the date of taking the photograph should be entered. This being the contention which was raised on the basis of the format which was contained in O.P.(KAT) 3692/2013. We have given an opportunity to the learned counsel for the petitioner to consult his client. In fact, the petitioner himself was present thereafter. There is no dispute on the part of the petitioner that he has not put the name and date. What the petitioner submits is there is no such requirement in Annexure A3 which prescribes the terms and conditions for one time registration. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further comment about Annexures A10 and A11 which purports to be applications for other posts. The photographs, which he has subsequently uploaded with name and date, find mention therein and he poses the question as to how this would be possible. Answer of the learned standing counsel for the Commission is as follows: As far as the post in question is concerned, the upper age limit is 40 years. The last date for making the application was 19/7/2012. The petitioner, no doubt, has added the name and the date of taking the photograph on 4/12/2012. As far as Annexures A10 & A11 are concerned, it is pointed out that by raising the upper age limit, the last date for making the application was extended. On 4/12/2012 the extended last date for making the application has not been reached for the post covered by Annexures A10 & A11. We would think this argument, at any rate, should not detain us from opining that it is not in dispute that the petitioner has not put his name and also the date of taking the photograph, as far as the present application is concerned for which the last date mentioned for making the application was not extended. This was, indeed, a requirement to be fulfilled as far as the one time registration is concerned though it is not governed by the instructions contained in Annexure A3 as such. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the petitioner uploaded without name and date, it is not rejected. We would think that his name appeared in view of the nature of the software that was installed and that will not give the petitioner the right as far as the requirement of putting the name and date has not been complied with.
We cannot allow the petitioner to wriggle out of this situation by citing absence of instructions as such in Annexure A3, when such requirement is found to be embedded as is clear from Ext.R1(f) produced in O.P. ( KAT) No. 3692/2013 which was also brought to the notice of the petitioner. There is no merit in the petition and it is dismissed.
Sd/-
K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE dpk.
/true copy/ PS to Judge.