Kerala High Court

Sujala S Kumari vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 13 May, 2022

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
  FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 23RD VAISAKHA, 1944
                    WP(C) NO. 19083 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:

            SUJALA S KUMARI
            AGED 48 YEARS
            L.D.CLERK, KERALA SANGEETHA NATAKA
            AKADEMI,CHEMBUKAVU, TRICHUR-20, AGED 48 YEARS,
            D/O.DAMODARAN, SUSHAMA NIVAS, KOTTAMURI PO.,
            THRIKKODITHANAM, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM-686
            105
            BY ADVS.
            T.B.MINI
            C.G.PREETHA
            DR.ABHILASH O.U.(K/000125/2019)

RESPONDENT/S:

    1       KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
            REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THULASI HILLS,
            PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004
    2       THE KERALA SANGETTHA NATAKA AKADEMI,
            REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHEMBUKAVU,
            TRICHUR-20, PIN-680 020
            BY ADVS.
            P.C.SASIDHARAN
            S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
            N.SANTHA
            V.V.VARGHESE
            PETER JOSE CHRISTO
            S.A.ANAND
            K.N.REMYA
            L.ANNAPOORNA
            VISHNU V.K.
            ABHIRAMI K. UDAY
            KURUVILLA SABU CHRISTY


        THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
01.04.2022, THE COURT ON 13.05.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.19083 of 2021

                                   -2-


                               JUDGMENT

Dated this the 13th day of May, 2022 The petitioner is working as Lower Division

Clerk in the second respondent Kerala Sangeetha

Nataka Academy. The first respondent Kerala

Public Service Commission invited applications

for departmental test for the purpose of

declaration of probation/promotion in the Gazette

dated 01.07.2020. The petitioner appeared for 9

papers in the departmental test conducted from

10.10.2020 onwards. In the meanwhile, the

petitioner's service was terminated, compelling

her to approach this Court in W.P.(C) No.21385 of

2020. The fact regarding petitioner's termination

was intimated by the second respondent to the

first respondent and as a result, when the result

of the departmental test was published on

01.03.2021, the petitioner was shown to have

failed in 7 papers and result of the other two

papers withheld. Being dissatisfied with the W.P.(C) No.19083 of 2021

result of the 7 papers, the petitioner applied

for rechecking of her marks. As there was no

change in rechecking result published on

22.04.2021, the petitioner submitted an online

application on 24.05.2021, requesting the PSC to

issue printouts of her answer scripts. The

request was rejected by Ext.P9 stating that the

application for copy of answer script/printout

ought to have filed within 30 days of publication

of the results. Aggrieved, this writ petition is

filed.

2. Adv.C.G.Preetha, learned Counsel for the

petitioner, submitted that the petitioner has

been subjected to victimisation by her superior

officers as she is better qualified than most of

them. This had resulted in the petitioner's

service being terminated abruptly. By Ext.P2

judgment, her writ petition had been allowed,

finding the order of termination to have been

issued without affording opportunity of hearing W.P.(C) No.19083 of 2021

to the petitioner, in spite of the termination

being stigmatic. Learned Counsel alleges that

the PSC had deliberately failed the petitioner

at the instance of the second respondent, which

fact will be evident on perusal of the answer

scripts. Hence, the petitioner had applied for

printouts of her answer scripts after publication

of the result of rechecking of marks in the

failed papers.

3. According to the learned Counsel, the 30

days time for submitting application has to be

reckoned from the date of publication of the

result of rechecking. If so, the application for

copies of answer scripts was submitted within

time. Alternatively it is contended that by the

time the application for copies was submitted,

lockdown had been imposed by the Government and

considering that special circumstance the Public

Service Commission ought to have accepted the

online application, treating it to have been W.P.(C) No.19083 of 2021

filed within time.

4. Adv.P.C.Sasidharan appearing for the

Public Service Commission took strong

exception against the allegation of collusion and

submitted that the first respondent is a

constitutional body working under a set of laid

down rules, fully insulated from any external

influence. Learned Counsel explained that by

letter dated 08.10.2020, the Secretary of the

second respondent had informed that the

petitioner was terminated from service and had no

right to attend the departmental exams. By the

time the letter was received, the petitioner had

already appeared for the exam conducted on

10.10.2020 and hence, she was permitted to appear

for the rest of the exams. Later, though the

petitioner was required to produce relevant

documents to prove that she is still working as

an employee in the second respondent, she

failed to do so. Hence, when the result of the W.P.(C) No.19083 of 2021

departmental test was published on 1.03.2021, the

petitioner's result was withheld. On 19.03.2021,

the petitioner submitted a representation along

with the judgment in W.P.(C) No.21385 of 2020

and requested to release her results.

Accordingly, the withheld results of two papers,

in which the petitioner had passed, was

published. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had

submitted application for rechecking of marks of

the 7 failed papers along with requisite fee on

30.03.2021. Based on the application, her marks

were rechecked and the petitioner was informed

that there is no change in her marks. Thereafter,

the petitioner made a request for getting print

out/photocopy of the 7 failed papers vide email

dated 24.05.2020. The application was rejected

finding the request to have been made beyond the

time limit of 30 days, that too without remitting

the requisite fees. As the time limit of 30 days W.P.(C) No.19083 of 2021

is stipulated in the result notification itself,

the petitioner cannot feign ignorance. The second

lockdown was imposed only in May 2021, by which

time, the 30 days stipulated for submitting

application for obtaining copies of the answer

scripts was already over.

5. Adv.S.P.Aravindakshan Pillai appearing

for the second respondent submitted that the

allegation of victimisation raised by the

petitioner against her superior officers are

baseless. It is pointed out that this Court had

interfered with the order terminating the

petitioner's service only on the ground of

denial of opportunity of hearing and in Ext.P2

judgment, liberty is granted to the second

respondent to initiate fresh proceedings, if so

warranted.

6. The question arrived for consideration

is whether the petitioner was bound to submit

application for obtaining copy/printout of the W.P.(C) No.19083 of 2021

answer script within 30 days of publication of

her result. The fact that the result was

published in the website on 01.03.2021 is not in

dispute. The petitioner had also submitted

application for rechecking of marks on 30.03.2021

viz; within 30 days of publication of the result.

The petitioner herself has produced Ext.P11

result notification. Clause 6 of the notification

require the applicants desirous of obtaining

printout of answer scripts to submit their

application after remitting requisite fees,

within 30 days of publication of the result. It

is specifically stated that the application

received beyond 30 days will not be entertained.

7. One of the contentions raised by the

petitioner is that the 30 days time has to be

reckoned from the date of publication of the

result of rechecking of marks. The said

contention is liable to be rejected since the

result notification provides for submission of W.P.(C) No.19083 of 2021

applications for rechecking of marks and

obtaining copies of answer scripts within 30 days

of publication of result. The other argument is

that the petitioner was prevented from submitting

the application for obtaining answer scripts due

to the lockdown imposed by the Government. It is

seen that in 2021, the Government had notified

lockdown only with effect from 6.00 a.m. of

08.05.2021, as per G.O(Rt) No.404/2021/DMD dated

06.05.2021. The 30 days period for submitting the

application having been expired by 31.03.2021,

the petitioner cannot bank upon the lockdown

imposed with effect from 08.05.2021 to contend

that her application ought to have been accepted.

Added to this is the admitted fact that the

petitioner had not remitted the requisite fees

along with the online application submitted on

24.05.2021. Having failed to take requisite steps

within the stipulated time, the petitioner cannot

seek issuance of a writ of mandamus for W.P.(C) No.19083 of 2021

compelling the first respondent to accept and

process her belated application.

In the result, the writ petition is

dismissed.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE Scl/ W.P.(C) No.19083 of 2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT COMMISSION TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.21385 /2020 DATED 14.10.2020 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED BY THE SANGEETHA NATAKA AKADEMIC TO THE RESPONDENT, OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RTI ACT Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RESULT OF THE PETITIONER PUBLISHED BY THE RESPONDENT IN THE WEBSITE WITHHOLDING THE RESULT OF 2 PAPERS Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT FOR PUBLICATION OF HER RESULTS Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RESULT OF THE PETITIONER PUBLISHED BY THE RESPONDENT IN THE WEBSITE Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT FOR RECHECKING THE 7 PAPERS Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT FOR PRINTOUT DATED 24.5.2021 Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF PETITIONER DATED 8.6.21 Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTEIM ORDER IN W.P.

(C) No.21385 of 2020 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 09.10.2020 Exhibit P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RESULT NOTIFICATION NO.DEI(1)1/1/2020-KPSC ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 01.3.2021