Kerala High Court
The Kerala Public Service Commission, ... vs Sajitha K on 22 August, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
OP(KAT) NOs.234 & 300/25 1 2025:KER:63620
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 31ST SRAVANA, 1947
OP(KAT) NO. 234 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.12.2024 IN OA NO.668 OF 2022 OF
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3:
1 THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
THULSI HILLS, PATTOM PALACE P O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 695004.
2 THE DISTRICT OFFICER,
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE,
COLLECTORATE PO, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001.
BY ADV SHRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT & 1ST RESPONDENT:
1 SABEETHA K,
D/O KAREEM N A, AGED 37 YEARS, NILA MANZIL,
CHULIYARDAM, MUTHALAMDA P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN - 678507.
2 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT.
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695001.
BY ADV DR.V.N.SANKARJEE
BY SRI. B. UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, SR. GP
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 12.08.2025, ALONG WITH OP(KAT).300/2025, THE COURT ON 22.08.2025
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(KAT) NOs.234 & 300/25 2 2025:KER:63620
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 31ST SRAVANA, 1947
OP(KAT) NO. 300 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.12.2024 IN OA (EKM) NO.476 OF
2022 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
(ADDITIONAL BENCH, ERNAKULAM)
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3:
1 THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THULSI HILLS,
PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 695004.
2 THE DISTRICT OFFICER,
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE,
COLLECTORATE P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001.
BY ADV SHRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS AND RESPONDENT NO.1:
1 SAJITHA K,
D/O KRISHNAN, AGED 37 YEARS, VYSHAGAM, KADAMPIDI,
CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678101.
2 DEEPA V,
D/O VASU A, MAVILEDATH, NEAR COWMA DAIRY,
KOZHINJAMPARA P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678555.
3 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695001.
OP(KAT) NOs.234 & 300/25 3 2025:KER:63620
BY ADV DR.V.N.SANKARJEE
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. B. UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, SR. GP
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 12.08.2025, ALONG WITH OP(KAT).234/2025, THE COURT ON
22.08.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(KAT) NOs.234 & 300/25 4 2025:KER:63620
JUDGMENT
"CR"
Muralee Krishna S., J.
Respondents 2 and 3 in O.A.Nos.668 of 2022 and 476 of
2022 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal,
Thiruvananthapuram ('the Tribunal' for short), have filed these
respective original petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, challenging the common order dated 16.12.2024 passed
by the Tribunal in those original applications.
2. The party respondents in these original petitions
applied for the selection to the post of LP School Teacher
(Malayalam Medium) conducted by the 1st petitioner Kerala Public
Service Commission ('KPSC' for short), in response to Annexure
A1 notification dated 31.12.2019. The written examination
pursuant to Annexure A1 notification was held on 24.11.2020. The
date of the interview with respect to the applicants in O.A.No.476
of 2022 was fixed on 17.12.2021 and 06.01.2022, respectively.
The interview for the applicant in O.A.No.668 of 2022 was
scheduled on 06.01.2022. According to the applicants, in their
profile messages, the notification or notice regarding the interview
OP(KAT) NOs.234 & 300/25 5 2025:KER:63620
was not sent or posted. Thus, the applicants did not know about
the date of the interview, and hence they were not able to appear
for the interview on the respective dates scheduled by the 1 st
petitioner. According to the applicants in O.A.No.476 of 2022, the
1st applicant knew about the interview only on 12.01.2022, and
the 2nd applicant knew about the interview only on 17.01.2022,
when they opened the part of their profile described as Admission
Ticket.
2.1. The applicant in O.A. No.668 of 2022 contended that
she knew about the interview only on 18.01.2022 when she
opened the part of the profile described as Admission Ticket.
Thereafter, the applicants submitted several representations
before the District Offices of KPSC concerned, requesting to
provide them further opportunity to attend the interview. But
those requests were rejected stating the reason that the requests
for the adjournment of the date of the interview were submitted
only after the date of the interview. Therefore, the applicants
approached the Tribunal with the above mentioned O.As.
2.2. The applicants in O.A.No.476 of 2022 inter alia sought
a direction to the KPSC and its Officials to permit them to attend
OP(KAT) NOs.234 & 300/25 6 2025:KER:63620
the interview scheduled to be held on 28.03.2022 at the District
Office of KPSC, Palakkad, and to consider the applicants for
selection and inclusion in the ranked list, depending upon their
merits. The applicant in O.A.No.668 of 2022 sought a direction to
the petitioners to conduct the interview of the applicant for
selection to the post for the Palakkad District at the Office of the
2nd petitioner, either along with the applicants in O.A.No.476 of
2022 or otherwise and credit the marks awarded for the interview
for selection to the said post.
3. In O.A.No.476 of 2022, the Tribunal passed an interim
order on 25.03.2022 directing the 1st petitioner to issue
appropriate direction to the District Office of KPSC at Malappuram
to permit the applicants therein to provisionally participate the
interview scheduled to be held from 06.04.2022 onwards or on
any other common date, which shall be informed in writing to the
applicants. It was made clear in that order that the provisional
participation allowed will not enure any right on the applicants.
However, the interim relief sought by the applicant in O.A.No.668
of 2022 was rejected by the Tribunal through an interim order
dated 20.04.2022. The said interim order was challenged by the
OP(KAT) NOs.234 & 300/25 7 2025:KER:63620
applicant in O.A.No.668 of 2022 before this Court in
O.P.(KAT)No.119 of 2022. By an interim direction, this Court
permitted the applicant to participate in the interview on
29.04.2022 or on any other convenient date, which the KPSC was
directed to inform the applicant in writing. It was made clear in
that interim order that merely because the applicant was
permitted to participate in the interview provisionally, no rights
would ensure to the applicant, and the said arrangement would be
subject to the outcome of the original petition. Later, by the
judgment dated 07.07.2022, this Court disposed of
O.P.(KAT)No.119 of 2022, making that interim order absolute and
relegating the applicant to the Tribunal for a decision in the O.A.
It was made clear in that judgment that all contentions of the
parties on the merits of the case are left open to be agitated before
the Tribunal.
4. The 1st petitioner filed a reply statement dated
05.10.2022 in O.A.No.476 of 2022 and a reply statement dated
11.09.2023 in O.A.No.668 of 2022. In both the reply statements,
the 1st petitioner raised almost the very same contentions. For
clarity of understanding, paragraphs 4, 5 and 8 to 10 of the reply
OP(KAT) NOs.234 & 300/25 8 2025:KER:63620
statement filed in O.A.No.668 of 2022 by the 1st petitioner are
extracted hereunder:
"4. The interview for selection to this post was scheduled in 4
stages, 2021 November, December, 2022 January and March on
the basis of the interview programmes published by the Hon'ble
Commission. An SMS was sent to the officially registered phone
number registered in the profile of the candidates directing to visit
their One Time Registration Profile of KPSC for information
regarding the interview. The details such as Date, Time, Venue
and Batch etc. regarding the interview was made available in the
"ANNOUNCEMENTS" link and the interview memo in "ADMISSION
TICKET" link in the candidates' profile. Moreover, press release
was published in this connection in leading dailies and media. The
interview schedule was available in the official website of Kerala
Public Service Commission.
5. The interview date of Smt. Sabeetha K. was scheduled on
06.01.2022. The main contention in the OA is that the notification
or notice regarding the interview was not sent or posted in the
profile of the applicant. It is submitted that an SMS was sent to
the officially registered phone number of the applicant Sabeetha
K. on 22.12.2021, directing to visit her One Time Registration
Profile of KPSC for information regarding the interview on
06.01.2022. Profile message in this regard was also sent. The
applicant Sabeetha K. has logged in her profile before the
interview on 02.01.2022 (twice), 03.01.2022 and 04.01.2022. It
implies that the applicant was aware of the date, time and place
of interview before her actual date of interview and the contention
raised in this regard is against the actual facts, without any merit.
6. xxxx xxxx xxxx
7. xxxx xxxx xxxx
OP(KAT) NOs.234 & 300/25 9 2025:KER:63620
8. It is submitted that when the interview memo is generated,
SMS will be sent to all candidates short listed, through the mobile
phone registered in their profile. In addition, profile message will
also be sent to all candidates intimating the date, time and venue
of the interview. Sending of SMS and making available the details
of the interview in "ANNOUNCEMENTS" link and interview memo
in "ADMISSION TICKET" link is the procedure followed by the
KPSC for all candidates participating in the various stages of
selection including interview. In the instant case, on going through
the log in details, it is clear that the applicant had logged into her
profile at the time of issuance of message regarding interview
scheduled to her. But the total negligence on her part made her
absent in the interview. Instead of admitting the lapse on her part,
she is simply blaming the Commission stating that no intimation
is forwarded to her regarding the interview.
9. Vide the Judgment in WA-1782/2011, Preetha P. S. vs K.P.S.C,
the Hon'ble High Court held that the Public Service Commission is
not required to send interview card by registered post when the
newspaper publications are made along with website publication.
The appellant ought to have followed up the matter which she did
not do. Consequently no interference is called for. The WA was
thus dismissed.
10. It is clear that communication via notice on the Commission's
website and SMS and Profile message is enough for intimation. It
is submitted that the intimation regarding the interview was also
published in the PSC bulletin on 15/12/2021 i.e,one month prior
to the date of interview. The interview programme was also
published in Commission's website one month prior to the
interview. Here, in the instant case, SMS and profile message
were also send to the applicant. As such Commission have made
all possible efforts to intimate the applicant of the Interview date.
OP(KAT) NOs.234 & 300/25 10 2025:KER:63620
Even after logging into her profile during the relevant time, she
failed to attend the interview. PSC cannot be blamed for the fault
on the part of the candidate. The irresponsible attitude of the
applicant has lead to this situation."
5. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of
materials on record, by the order dated 16.12.2024, the original
applications were disposed of by the Tribunal. Paragraphs 6 and
the last paragraph of that order read thus:
"6. While evaluating the factual situation we accept the
contentions raised by the PSC that there occurred failure on the
part of the applicants in participating in the interview, despite due
intimations given as required under the relevant Rules and
procedures. However, we take note of the fact that all the
applicants were permitted to participate in the interview based on
orders issued. On that basis, this Tribunal is of the considered
opinion that, a lenient view can be taken to direct the PSC to
include their names in the ranked list published, in appropriate
ranking position. However, we make it clear that the above
direction is issued merely based on the factual situation prevailing
in these cases and not based on any legal right established by the
applicants. We make it also clear that, the directions issued in this
regard in the above cases shall not be treated as a precedent in
any other cases, especially because of the fact that this Tribunal
had not made any adjudication into the merits of the claims raised
by the applicants.
Under the above mentioned circumstances, the Original
Applications are hereby disposed of by directing the PSC and its
officials to re-notify the ranked list published with respect to the
selection made to the post in question, by including names of the
OP(KAT) NOs.234 & 300/25 11 2025:KER:63620
applicants in both the cases at the appropriate positions. Needless
to observe that, the applicants shall be advised for appointment
depending upon their ranking position and on the basis of the
Rotation Chart which will be prepared without any further delay."
6. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners,
the learned counsel for the respondents, and the learned Senior
Government Pleader.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit
that in the impugned order, the Tribunal found that there occurred
a failure on the part of the applicants in participating in the
interview, despite due intimations given as required under the
relevant rules and procedures. Therefore, the subsequent
direction given by the Tribunal to include the names of the
applicants in the rank list with respect to the selection made to
the post in question, is illegal and is liable to be interfered with by
this Court, exercising the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227
of the Constitution of India. In support of his arguments, the
learned Standing Counsel relied on the judgment of a learned
Single Judge of this Court in Raghavan v. PSC [1985 KLT 880],
and a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated
12.07.2023 in O.P.(KAT) No.4 of 2023.
OP(KAT) NOs.234 & 300/25 12 2025:KER:63620
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
applicants/party respondents contended that in the profile of the
applicants, no intimation was received with regard to the interview
scheduled by the 1st petitioner. It is true that the applicants logged
into their profile page. However, they did not receive the interview
memo. Hence, there is no laches on the part of the applicants in
appearing for the interview, and therefore, there is no interference
warranted to the impugned order of the Tribunal.
9. In Raghavan [1985 KLT 880], a candidate for
recruitment to the post of Excise Guards, sought a direction
against the KPSC for arranging a special interview contending that
he has not received the post card intimating the interview. After
analyzing the facts, this Court dismissed the original petition
holding that there is no necessity for a special interview for the
benefit of the petitioner therein alone at the distance of time, when
the ranked list itself has long ceased to be operative.
10. In O.P.(KAT) No.4 of 2023, the petitioner therein, who
failed to submit the confirmation for writing the written
examination through the one time registration profile on time,
sought for a direction permitting him to make confirmation afresh,
OP(KAT) NOs.234 & 300/25 13 2025:KER:63620
so as to download the admission ticket, in order to appear for the
written test along with a prayer to condone the delay in submitting
the confirmation. The prayer of the petitioner therein was rejected
by the Tribunal and by relying on judgment of the Full Bench of
this Court in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Reshmi
K.R. and Others [2019 (5) KHC 875]. Challenging the order of
the Tribunal, O.P.(KAT)No.4 of 2023, was filed by the petitioner
therein. In paragraph 13 of the said judgment, this Court held
thus:
"13. Now coming to the issuance of an SMS alert, we notice
that Ext.R1(a) has been produced by the respondents to
show that an SMS in the registered mobile number of the
applicant has been sent. The SMS details are contained in
Annexure-R1(a). The SMS is seen sent on 19.2.2021 and
that the same is seen delivered on 20.2.2021 at 6.36 am,
as per Annexure-R1(a). We do take notice of the applicant's
contention that the SMS was not delivered in his mobile
number on the date and time as claimed by the
respondents, in support of which he produced Annexure-A5
SMS/call details. However, we are of the definite opinion
that once the Public Service Commission satisfactorily
establish that the information has been sent by reliable
material, no further liability can be fastened on it to also
show that the information had in fact been delivered on the
applicant, for, there could be myriad situations and
circumstances which prevents the delivery of the article
OP(KAT) NOs.234 & 300/25 14 2025:KER:63620
sent, especially, when the information is sent via electronic
media. We cannot be oblivious of the inherent frailty, even
in the midst of highly advanced technology, of a failure in
this regard, be it systemic or otherwise. In the instant facts,
we are fully convinced that the Commission had discharged
its duty/responsibility by establishing vide Annexure-R1(a)
that the SMS was sent to the mobile number of the
applicant calling upon him to log into the profile and to
submit the confirmation for writing the examination."
11. In the instant case, the applicants/party respondents
are saying that they have not received any communication in their
profile regarding the date of the interview. However, the
petitioners took a stand that the communications by way of SMS
and profile messages were sent to all the candidates, who are
entitled to appear for the interview. The applicants are admitting
that they opened the portion of their profile described as
admission ticket, only after the date of the interview and
downloaded the respective interview memos.
12. At this juncture it is pertinent to note that as per
illustration (e) to Section 119 (1) of the Bharatiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam, 2023, ('BSA' for short) (Previously Section 114(e) of
the Indian Evidence Act), Court may presume that all judicial and
official acts have been regularly performed. In the instant case,
OP(KAT) NOs.234 & 300/25 15 2025:KER:63620
the petitioners are saying that they have performed their official
act of sending communication to all the candidates intimating the
dates of interview. The applicants are also admitting that they
have accessed their profile on several occasions prior to the date
of interview. They content that they opened the part of their profile
described as Admission Ticket only after the date of the interview.
However, there is no circumstance or material produced by the
applicants/party respondents to accept their said contention, to
rebut the presumption under illustration (e) to Section 119 (1) of
the BSA or the contention of the petitioners that they have sent
the communication regarding the interview through SMS and
profile messages.
13. Having considered the pleadings and materials on
record and the submission made at the Bar, in the light of the
discussion made above, we are of the opinion that the contention
of the applicants that they have not received the messages
pertaining to the interview and hence, could not appear for the
same on the scheduled dates cannot be accepted. It is true that
the applicants were permitted to participate in the interview in
other districts by the interim orders of the Tribunal as well as this
OP(KAT) NOs.234 & 300/25 16 2025:KER:63620
Court. But it was made clear in those orders that the permission
to participate in the interview was purely provisional, and it would
be subject to the final decision of the O.A. In such circumstances,
we find no reason to sustain the impugned order of the Tribunal.
In the result, these original petitions are allowed by setting
aside the impugned common order dated 16.12.2024, passed by
the Tribunal in the respective original applications bearing
numbers O.A.No.476 of 2022 and O.A.No.668 of 2022, and the
original applications are consequently stand dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
DSV
OP(KAT) NOs.234 & 300/25 17 2025:KER:63620
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 234/2025
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A. NO.668/2022 FILED BY
THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION HAVING CATEGORY
NO.516/2019 PUBLISHED IN THE KERALA
EXTRAORDINARY GAZETTE DATED 31.12.2019.
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICANT S APPLICATION
DATED 06.01.2020 AS UPLOADED IN THE SITE OF
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF ADMISSION TICKET OF THE
APPLICANT WITH REGISTER NUMBER Z 113085.
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.PCN 180023986
DATED 21.10.2021 ISSUED TO THE 1ST APPLICANT
REGARDING CERTIFICATE VERIFICATION.
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERVIEW DETAILS DATED
06.01.2022 OF THE APPLICANT IN THE SITE OF
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICANT S REPRESENTATION
DATED 19.01.2022 TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT S LETTER
NO.PVII(1)2/2020-DUMMY DATED 23.01.2022
ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT.
Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.03.2022 IN
O.A.(EKM) NO.476/2022 OF THIS HONOURABLE
TRIBUNAL.
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS
APPLICATION DATED 5/10/2022
Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST NO.258/2022/SSV
PUBLISHED BY THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
FOR CATEGORY NO.516/2019 WITH EFFECT FROM
31.05.2022 FOR PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.07.2022
IN Ο.Ρ(ΚΑΤ) NO.119/2022 OF THE HONOURABLE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED
11/9/2023 FILED BY THE COMMISSION
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A.
NO.668/2022 DATED 16/12/2024
OP(KAT) NOs.234 & 300/25 18 2025:KER:63620
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 300/2025
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A(EKM) NO.476/2022 FILED
BY THE APPLICANTS BEFORE THE KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION HAVING CATEGORY
NO.516/2019 PUBLISHED IN THE KERALA
EXTRAORDINARY GAZETTE DATED 31.12.2019.
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST APPLICANT S APPLICATION
DATED 30.01.2020 AS UPLOADED IN THE SITE OF
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND APPLICANT S APPLICATION
DATED 27.01.2020 AS UPLOADED IN THE SITE OF
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF ADMISSION TICKET OF THE 1ST
APPLICANT WITH REGISTER NUMBER Z 112770.
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF ADMISSION TICKET OF THE 2ND
APPLICANT WITH REGISTER NUMBER Z 113065.
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.PCN 210024747
DATED 18.10.2021 ISSUED TO THE 1ST APPLICANT
REGARDING CERTIFICATE VERIFICATION TOGETHER
WITH ANNOUNCEMENT AS UPLOADED IN THE SITE OF
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.PCN 210025832
DATED 21.10.2021 ISSUED TO THE 2ND APPLICANT
REGARDING CERTIFICATE VERIFICATION TOGETHER
WITH ANNOUNCEMENT AS UPLOADED IN THE SITE OF
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET OF THE 1ST
APPLICANT IN THE SITE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET OF THE 2ND
APPLICANT IN THE SITE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST APPLICANT S
REPRESENTATION DATED 12.01.2022(ON
15.01.2022) TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure A10( a) TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST APPLICANT S
REPRESENTATION DATED 12.01.2022 (ON
15.01.2022) TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Annexure A11 TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST APPLICANT S
REPRESENTATION DATED 18.01.2022 TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
Annexure A12 TRUE COPY OF THE COVID VACCINATION
CERTIFICATE OF THE 1ST APPLICANT.
Annexure A13 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL PRESCRIPTION DATED
OP(KAT) NOs.234 & 300/25 19 2025:KER:63620
17.12.2021 ISSUED BY DR.P.K.PAVITHRAN,
ASSISTANT SURGEON(RTD)., CHITTUR TO THE 1ST
APPLICANT.
Annexure A14 TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND APPLICANT S
REPRESENTATION DATED 21.01.2022 TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
Annexure A15 TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT S LETTER
NO.DR4- 2/24/2019-KPSC (DUMMY 1) DATED
02.03.2022 ISSUED TO THE 1ST APPLICANT.
Annexure A16 TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT S LETTER
NO.DR4- 2/24/2019-KPSC (DUMMY 1) DATED
02.03.2022 ISSUED TO THE 2ND APPLICANT.
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS
APPLICATION DATED 6/6/2022.
Annexure A17 TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST NO.258/2022/SSV
PUBLISHED BY THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
FOR CATEGORY NO.516/2019.
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT ALONG
WITH ANNEXURES DATED 5/10/2022 FILED BY THE
COMMISSION
Annexure R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE LOGIN DETAILS OF THE 1ST
APPLICANT.
Annexure R2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE LOGIN DETAILS OF THE 2ND
APPLICANT.
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED
22/7/2023.
Annexure A18 TRUE COPY OF THE ANNOUNCEMENT FOLDER IN THE
1ST APPLICANT S PSC PROFILE.
Annexure A19 TRUE COPY OF THE ANNOUNCEMENT FOLDER IN THE
2ND APPLICANT S PSC PROFILE.
Annexure A20 TRUE COPY OF THE PROFILE MESSAGES IN THE 1ST
APPLICANT S PSC PROFILE.
Annexure A21 TRUE COPY OF THE PROFILE MESSAGES IN THE 2ND
APPLICANT S PSC PROFILE.
Annexure A22 TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET FOLDER IN
THE 1ST APPLICANT S PSC PROFILE IN THE YEAR
2021.
Annexure A23 TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET FOLDER IN
THE 2ND APPLICANT S PSC PROFILE IN THE YEAR
2021.
Annexure A24 TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET FOLDER IN
THE 1ST APPLICANT S PSC PROFILE IN THE YEAR
2022.
Annexure A25 TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET FOLDER IN
THE 2ND APPLICANT S PSC PROFILE IN THE YEAR
OP(KAT) NOs.234 & 300/25 20 2025:KER:63620
2022.
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A(EKM)
NO.476/2022 DATED 16/12/2024
