AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
3 paragraphs · 226 wordsThottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.—We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner quite in extenso.
As rightly noted by the learned Tribunal, the issue as to whether the uploaded photographs had to carry the name of the person whose photograph is uploaded and the date on which the photograph was taken is beyond dispute. The fact that the failure to do so has led to disqualification of candidates is a situation accepted by the series of judgments by now. The learned Tribunal has referred to Sasikala T.V. v. Kerala Public Service Commission [2012(2) KHC 441] and O.P. (KAT) No. 3233 of 2013. This Court also noticed the same situation in Sreejesh Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala, and any distinction sought to be drawn on the basis of O.P. (KAT) No. 2011 of 2013, does not survive in view of the judgment in O.P. (KAT) No. 4126 of 2013. We may also notice that the situation is also covered by judgment rendered today in O.P. (KAT) No. 147 of 2014. Under such circumstances, we are unable to see any jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. We do not, therefore, find any ground to interfere in exercise of authority under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The original petition, therefore, fails.
In the result, this original petition is dismissed in limine.