Meera Rachappa Alur vs The State of Karnataka

N. Ananda, J.—The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Commissioner for Commercial Taxes. It is the grievance of petitioner that she was a candidate belonging to category III-B Therefore, the selection list should have been prepared by treating her as a candidate of III-B category. It is the grievance of petitioner that she had sought for time to produce III-B category certificate when she appeared for personality test on 19.01.2006. The time was not granted. After the personality test she submitted the certificate. Therefore, her certificate should have been taken into consideration to prepare the merit list in which event the petitioner would have been posted as Assistant Commissioner (Department of Revenue). It is the contention of the petitioner that she has more promotional avenues and chances in the revenue department than in the Commercial tax department in which she is presently working as Assistant Commissioner.

We have heard the learned counsel for parties and gone through the records and the notice of personality test issued to petitioner which reads thus:

"The candidate should appear for Personality Test half-an-hour earlier to the schedule time indicated to facilitate the office to verify all the original certificates (copies of which enclosed to his/her Application for G.P. Main Examination 2005) before allowing him/her to appear for personality test. The candidate should note that he/she will not be eligible for personality test if the requisitioned original certificates (copies of which enclosed to his/her application for G.P. Main Examination, 2005) are not produced on the date and time of interview. Under no circumstances, the candidate will be allowed to produce the originals subsequent to the date and time of Personality Test."

The petitioner was selected as Class-I gazetted officer. She had the responsibility to take the requisite certificates while appearing for personality test. The petitioner was the defaulter. The petitioner cannot expect the KPSC to stall the preparation of the merit list awaiting the certificates which the petitioner had to produce when she appeared for personality test. The candidate appearing for interview cannot commit default and expect the authorities to stall the process.

The learned Members of the Tribunal following the judgment of Kerala High Court in W.P. No. 29243/2004 (in the case of V. Swadathan Pillai K Vs. Kerala Public Service Commission and another) have held that the candidate appearing for an interview has to comply with the notice of interview and should appear for personality test with the requisite testimonials/certificates. The learned Members of the Tribunal have held that petitioner has to blame herself for her failure to produce original III-B category certificate at the time of personality test on 19.01 2006. The learned Members of the Tribunal have also relied upon the decision of this Court in W.P. No. 15384/1998 dated 28.03.2000 wherein this Court has held:

"6. As per the notice of interview, all the candidates were required to produce all the original certificates at the time of interview and they were also made to know that failure to produce such originals will make the candidates ineligible for the interview. In spite of it, she was not able to produce the original reservation certificate dated 26.12.1994. Therefore, she was taken as General Merit Candidate. Even under General Merit Category, she was not eligible for selection in view of the fact that the percentage of her marks was much less than the last candidate selected under General Merit Category.

7......In the matter of appointment, time and again it is said that the candidates have to comply with the specific stipulations while claiming reservation or with regard to the qualifications. Any laches on their part would definitely result in rejecting the application. In such a situation, one cannot claim as a matter of right sympathy or equity. As already discussed above, unless the writ petitioner has made out justifiable ground or cause for considering her case for category, this Court cannot come to her rescue. The 1st respondent while considering her case for Category-I or General Merit at the time of selection process or the Tribunal, while considering her application or review application, have looked into the matter from all the angles. Therefore, the Writ Petitioner has not made out a case to give her the relief she has sought for."

On reconsideration, we do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned order. The petition is dismissed.