2001 (5) TMI 946 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of restriction on applying to more than one district.
2. Alleged violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
3. Misleading nature of the short notification.
4. Equitable relief for appellants who crossed the upper age limit.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of restriction on applying to more than one district:
The Kerala Public Service Commission (the Commission) issued a notification on 2-4-1996, inviting applications for 348 posts of Junior Health Inspector Grade II in 14 districts, with a restriction that candidates should not apply for more than one district. This restriction was incorporated in Part I Note (2) and Part II Conditions 25(b) and 29 of the notification. The Commission rejected applications from candidates who applied to more than one district or made false declarations about applying to only one district. The Supreme Court upheld this restriction, noting that it was intended to avoid administrative inconvenience and ensure a feasible selection process. The restriction does not curtail the candidates' rights as they are free to choose any one district of their preference.

2. Alleged violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution:
The appellants argued that the restriction violated the equality clause enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution by limiting their right to be considered for posts in multiple districts. The Court referred to the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958, and the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, which provided the legal framework for such restrictions. The Court found no evidence of discrimination or that more meritorious candidates were deprived of employment in favor of less meritorious ones. The Court distinguished this case from others where regional or unitwise classifications in admissions or selections were found to be unconstitutional, concluding that the restriction was not violative of Articles 14 and 16.

3. Misleading nature of the short notification:
The appellants contended that the short notification issued on 11-4-1996 misled them into applying for more than one district, as it did not explicitly mention the penal provisions for doing so. However, the Court noted that the short notification referred candidates to the detailed gazette notification dated 2-4-1996, which contained the relevant restrictions and penalties. The application form also instructed candidates to read the gazette notification before filling it out. The Court found that the appellants were obliged to refer to the detailed notification and rejected this contention.

4. Equitable relief for appellants who crossed the upper age limit:
The appellants requested equitable relief, arguing that they had crossed the upper age limit and that vacancies were available. They suggested that they could be considered for selection based on their merit without disturbing the already selected candidates. The Court rejected this plea, citing the appellants' conduct in making false declarations and applying in multiple districts in contravention of the notification. The Court emphasized that the Commission had been lenient by not debarring them from future applications or initiating criminal prosecution.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concurred with the High Court's decision to uphold the Commission's rejection of the appellants' candidatures. The appeals were dismissed, with no order as to costs. The Court affirmed the validity of the restriction on applying to more than one district and found no violation of constitutional provisions or misleading conduct by the Commission.