K.G. ASHOK AND ORS. ETC. versus KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 453 · Decided: 03-05-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

+ 
K.G. ASHOK AND ORS. ETC. 
A 
v. 
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ORS. 
MAY 3, 2001 
[G.B. PATTANAIK, S.N. PHUKAN AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law 
Recruitment-Junior Health Inspector-Government notification 
inviting application for several Districts-Restrictions imposed on candidates C 
to apply in only one District-Candidates contravening the said restriction 
and making false declaration-Public Service Commission-Rejection of 
application by-Validity of-Held, Imposition of restrictions not violative of 
Articles I4 and 16-Commission justified in rejecting the applications~ 
Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 14 and 16-Kerala State and D 
Subordinate Services Rule, 1958. 
Interpretation of statutes 
Rule of reading down a provision-Applicability of-Provision found 
to be constitutional-Held, could not be read .down. 
Respondent-Public Service Commission issued a notification inviting 
applications for the post of Junior Health Inspector in 14 Districts of the 
State. The said notification imposed a restriction on the candidates from 
applying in more than one district and provided that if a candidate applies 
E 
in contravention of the said restriction, his application was liable to be rejected. F 
Similarly the application of a person was liable to be rejected on the ground 
that he had applied in more than one district but had made a false declaration 
in the application form that he had not so applied. Appellant-candidates whose 
applications were rejected on either of the two grounds, unsuccessfully filed 
writ petitions before the High Court. Bence the present appeal. 
On behalf of appellants it was contended that restricting choice of 
candidates to one district was violative of equality clause enshrined under 
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution; that though they had applied in more 
than one district, they can appear in the examination only in one district in 
view of that fact that test was conducted in all the districts on one date and 
G 
~3 
H 
\ + 
454 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2001] 3 S.C.R. 
A therefore, rule restricting the filing of application for one district should be 
read down in its application to their case; that many of them had crossed the 
Jc-
upper age limit and since number of vacancies were available, without 
disturbing already selected candidates they may be considered for selection 
on the basis of their placement in the merit list. 
B 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
c 
HELD : 1.1. Respondent-Public Service Commission was justified in 
rejecting the candidature of appellants on the ground that they had applied 
for more than one district or that they had given false declaration in the 
application form that they had not so applied. [467-E] 
0.N. Omana v. Kera/a Public Service Commission and Ors., S.L.P. (Civil) 
No. 12562 of 1999, relied on. 
1.2. Though a candidate is prohibited from applying in more than one 
district, he is free to choose any district of his choice and thus the only thing 
D is that the candidate is not entitled to apply for the same post in more than 
one district at a time. Here, the right of the candidate is not curtailed as he/ 
she is not prevented from choosing the district of his/her choice. At the same 
time, if every person is permitted to apply for all districts the number of 
applications received by the Commission will be 14 times the number of 
applications now being received with the result that the Commission will be 
E doing a futile exercise of selection work, in the other 13 districts, as a 
candidate can after all accept appointment in only one District. Considering 
all these aspects the Commission has imposed the restriction on candidates 
from applying in more than one District in response to one and the same 
notification. The restriction does not tantamount to the denial of opportunity 
F to a candidate for applying to any post. Further, neither before High Court 
nor before this Court necessary facts showing (jiscrimination have been 
pleaded inasmuch as there is nothing to show that more meritorious persons 
have been deprived of employment where~s persons of inferior merit have 
been selected. [463-D-F; 465-C-D] 
G 
Radheshyam Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., [1997] 1 SCC 
60; Minor P. Rajendran v. State of Madras and Ors., [1968) 2 SCR 786; 
• 
Minor A Periakaruppan and Sobha Joseph v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., 
· [1971] 1 SCC 38 and Nidomarti Mahe sh kumar v. State of Maharashtra and 
r-.-
f.Jrs .. [
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.