1.Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

                  “1) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Junior Assistant/ Assistant Grade Il pursuant to her inclusion in Exhibit P2 ranked list untrammelled by the spelling mistake in caste name recorded in the application and in OTV sheet;

                  2) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent not to take cognizance of the simple, inadvertent and innocent mistake crept in the spelling of the caste name recorded by the petitioner and permit his participation in the further selection proceedings for the post of Junior Assistant/ Assistant Grade II;

                  3) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to treat the petitioner as a member of Cheruman caste (Scheduled caste) based on Exhibit P1 caste certificate which is stood uploaded and refrain from raising objection relying on minute, innocent, inadvertent and simple mistake crept in the spelling of caste recorded by him while uploading his application;

                  4) Declare that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for the post of Junior Assistant/Assistant Grade Il in various Govt. owned PSUs and her caste status is not extinguished by virtue of innocent and simple spelling mistake crept in the one-time verification profile of the petitioner;

                  5) Such other reliefs that the Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

                  6) Dispense with filing of transactions of vernacular documents.”

2. Petitioner is a candidate belonging to ‘Cheruman’ community (Scheduled Caste). Petitioner has been included in the final Ranked list issued by the 1st respondent-Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) for the post of Junior Assistant in various Govt. owned Companies and Corporations/Board. Petitioner belongs to the ‘Cheruman’ community, as evident from Ext.P1 Community Certificate, which is a notified Scheduled Caste under the Presidential Order issued under Article 341 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner figured at Rank No.56 in the Supplementary list for Scheduled Caste. While the petitioner was anxiously waiting for an appointment, being the next person in the ranklist, she was issued with Ext.P7 show-cause notice seeking to cancel her candidature and directed to offer her explanation. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted Ext.P8 reply to that effect, wherein it is stated that in the application submitted by the petitioner, she claimed appointment as ‘Hindu-Cheraman’, but when the Caste Certificate was verified, she belongs to ‘SC-Cheruman’ and she was asked to submit necessary explanation for the same. In Ext.P8 reply, the petitioner stated that it was only due to an inadvertent mistake while entering the actual caste of ‘Cheruman’ that it was mistakenly entered as ‘Cheraman’. Petitioner submits that the said mistake crept in the spelling of his caste name went unnoticed, but Ext.P1 Caste Certificate produced will prove that she belongs to ‘Cheruman’ community. It is also submitted that the Certificates of the petitioner were verified by the respondent-PSC thrice, on 07.06.2019, 02.03.2023 and on 07.12.2023, and that without taking any decision pursuant to Ext.P7 show-cause notice and Ext.P8 reply, Ext.P9 erratum notification has been issued to delete the name of the petitioner from Ext.P2 original rank list. It is aggrieved by the same, that the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition.

3. When the matter came up for consideration on 07.10.2025, this Court has passed the following order:

                  “The case of the petitioner is that while uploading the application a mistake crept in while typing the spelling of the caste to which the petitioner belongs and instead of “Cheruman” it was typed as “Cheraman”. The petitioner did not have any reason to doubt her inclusion in the list, since she was shown in the rank list under the head 'Scheduled Caste'. Since the caste certificate which was uploaded showed her caste as ‘SC Cheruman’, the 1st respondent has issued Ext.P7 show cause notice stating that there is a discrepancy between the document uploaded and the application submitted. Petitioner has been asked to show cause. Ext.P8 is the explanation submitted by the petitioner to Ext.P7 wherein she has explained the mistake and stated that it was only a human error which has happened.

                  2. The Standing Counsel to get instructions as to the action that has been taken on Ext.P8 and if no positive orders have been issued, the same shall be issued only after verification of the community status of the petitioner with respect to the documents produced and shall not be rejected solely for the reason of the mistake. The 1st respondent is free to verify any other supporting documents to show the caste status of the petitioner, if so advised.”

4. As per the said interim order, the Court directed the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-PSC to get instructions as to the action taken on Ext.P8 and if no positive orders have been issued, the same shall be issued only after verification of the community status of the petitioner with respect to the documents produced and shall not be rejected solely for the reason of the mistake. The Court also permitted the 1st respondent to verify any other supporting documents to show the caste status of the petitioner.

5. When the matter came up for consideration on 17.11.2025, the operation of Ext.P9 was stayed with a consequential direction to the respondents not to fill up the next vacant post allocable to ‘Cheruman’ Community.

6. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-PSC submits that it is not a typographical mistake, that has crept in and that the petitioner has, by mistake, entered her community in the application as ‘Cheraman’ instead of ‘Cheruman’, which is the actual caste of the petitioner.

7. Admittedly, both ‘Cheraman’ and ‘Cheruman’ belong to the SC Community. It is only a bonafide mistake in entering the relevant column of the application. Ext.P1 Community Certificate produced by the petitioner would reveal that she belongs to ‘Cheruman’ Community.

8. Petitioner relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE and Others [2004 KHC 2094], wherein, the Apex Court has, while considering a similar matter, held in paragraph 7 as follows:

                  “7. The general rule is that while applying for any course of study or a post, a person must possess the eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for such purpose either in the admission brochure or in application form, as the case may be, unless there is an express provision to the contrary. There can be no relaxation in this regard i.e. in the matter of holding the requisite eligibility qualification by the date fixed. This has to be established by producing the necessary certificates, degrees or marksheets. Similarly, in order to avail of the benefit of reservation or weightage etc. necessary certificates have to be produced. These are documents in the nature of proof of holding of particular qualification or percentage of marks secured or entitlement for benefit of reservation. Depending upon the facts of a case, there can be some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof and it will not be proper to apply any rigid principle as it pertains in the domain of procedure. Every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature.”

9. In Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Another [2016 KHC 6164], the candidate failed to submit the OBC Certificate along with the application form before the last date of submission of the said form. The rejection was challenged before the learned Single Judge and a relief was granted in favour of the applicant, which was reversed in appeal, thereafter the matter came up before the Apex Court. The Apex Court, in the said judgment, reversed the order of the Division Bench and the legal position was clarified as follows:

                  “3. The important question of law to be decided in these appeals is whether a candidate who appears in an examination under the O.B.C. category and submits the certificate after the last date mentioned in the advertisement is eligible for selection to the post under the O.B.C. category or not.

                  Xxxxx

                  13. After hearing both the parties at length and perusing the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, we are of the view that the Division Bench erred in setting aside the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge. We record our reasons hereunder.

                  14. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in not considering the decision rendered in the case of Pushpa (supra). In that case, the learned single Judge of the High Court had rightly held that the petitioners therein were entitled to submit the O.B.C. certificate before the provisional selection list was published to claim the benefit of the reservation of O.B.C. category. The learned single judge correctly examined the entire situation not in a pedantic manner but in the backdrop of the object of reservations made to the reserved categories, and keeping in view the law laid down by a Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India[4] as well as Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University & Ors.[5] The learned single Judge in the case of Pushpa (supra) also considered another.

                  Page 11 judgment of Delhi High Court, in the case of Tej Pal Singh (supra), wherein the Delhi High Court had already taken the view that the candidature of those candidates who belonged to the S.C. and S.T. categories could not be rejected simply on account of the late submission of caste certificate. The relevant paragraph from the judgment of this Court in the case of Indra Sawhney (supra) has been extracted in the case of Pushpa (supra) along with the speech delivered by Dr. Ambedkar in the constituent assembly and reads thus:- “9….. xxx xxx

                  xxx

                  251. Referring to the concept of equality of opportunity in public employment, as embodied in Article 10 of the draft Constitution, which finally emerged as Article 16 of the Constitution, and the conflicting claims of various communities for representation in public administration, Dr Ambedkar emphatically declared that reservation should be confined to ‘a minority of seats’, lest the very concept of equality should be destroyed. In view of its Page 12 great importance, the full text of his speech delivered in the Constituent Assembly on the point is appended to this judgment. But I shall now read a few passages from it. Dr Ambedkar stated: “… firstly, that there shall be equality of opportunity, secondly, that there shall be reservations in favour of certain communities which have not so far had a ‘proper lookin’ so to say into the administration …. Supposing, for instance, we were to concede in full the demand of those communities who have not been so far employed in the public services to the fullest extent, what would really happen is, we shall be completely destroying the first proposition upon which we are all agreed, namely, that there shall be an equality of opportunity …. Therefore the seats to be reserved, if the reservation is to be consistent with sub-clause (1) of Article 10, must be confined to a minority of seats. It is then only that the first principle could find its place in the Constitution and effective in operation … we have to safeguard two things, namely, the principle of equality of opportunity and at the same time satisfy the demand of communities which have not had so far representation in the State, …”. Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. 7, pp. 701-702 (1948- 49). These words embody the raison d’etre of Page 13 reservation and its limitations. Reservation is one of the measures adopted by the Constitution to remedy the continuing evil effects of prior inequities stemming from discriminatory practices against various classes of people which have resulted in their social, educational and economic backwardness. Reservation is meant to be addressed to the present social, educational and economic backwardness caused by purposeful societal discrimination. To attack the continuing ill effects and perpetuation of such injustice, the Constitution permits and empowers the State to adopt corrective devices even when they have discriminatory and exclusionary effects. Any such measure, in so far as one group is preferred to the exclusion of another, must necessarily be narrowly tailored to the achievement of the fundamental constitutional goal.

                  15. In the case of Pushpa (supra), relevant paragraphs from the case of Tej Pal Singh (supra) have also been extracted, which read thus:- “11…… xxx xxx x

                  17. The matter can be looked into from another angle also. As per the advertisement dated 11th June, 1999 issued by the Board, vacancies are reserved for various categories including 'SC' category. Thus in order to be considered for the post reserved for 'SC' category, the requirement is that a person should belong to 'SC' category. If a Page 14 person is SC his is so by birth and not by acquisition of this category because of any other event happening at a later stage. A certificate issued by competent authority to this effect is only an affirmation of fact which is already in existence. The purpose of such certificate is to enable the authorities to believe in the assertion of the candidate that he belongs to 'SC' category and act thereon by giving the benefit to such candidate for his belonging to 'SC' category. It is not that petitioners did not belong to 'SC' category prior to 30th June, 1998 or that acquired the status of being 'SC' only on the date of issuance of the certificate. In view of this position, necessitating upon a certificate dated prior to 30th June, 1998 would be clearly arbitrary and it has no rationale objective sought to be achieved.

                  18. While taking a particular view in such matters one has to keep in mind the objectives behind the post of SC and ST categories as per constitutional mandate prescribed in Articles 15(4) and 16(4) which are enabling provisions authorising the Government to make special provisions for the persons of SC and ST categories. Articles 14(4) and 16(4), therefore, intend to remove social and economic inequality to make equal opportunities available in reality. Social and economic justice is a right enshrined for protection of society. The right in social and economic justice Page 15 envisaged in the Preamble and elongated in the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of the Constitution, in particular Arts. 14, 15, 16, 21, 38, 39 and 46 are to make the quality of the life of the poor, disadvantaged and disabled citizens of the society meaningful.” Further, in the case of Pushpa (supra), relevant portion from the judgment of Valsamma Paul’s case (supra) has also been extracted, which reads as under:- “21. The Constitution through its Preamble, Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles created a secular State based on the principle of equality and non-discrimination, striking a balance between the rights of the individuals and the duty and commitment of the State to establish an egalitarian social order.”

                  16. In our considered view, the decision rendered in the case of Pushpa (supra) is in conformity with the position of law laid down by this Court, which have been referred to supra. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in reversing the judgment and order Page 16 passed by the learned single Judge, without noticing the binding precedent on the question laid down by the Constitution Benches of this Court in the cases of Indra Sawhney and Valsamma Paul (supra) wherein this Court after interpretation of Articles 14,15,16 and 39A of the Directive Principles of State Policy held that the object of providing reservation to the SC/ST and educationally and socially backward classes of the society is to remove inequality in public employment, as candidates belonging to these categories are unable to compete with the candidates belonging to the general category as a result of facing centuries of oppression and deprivation of opportunity. The constitutional concept of reservation envisaged in the Preamble of the Constitution as well as Articles 14, 15, 16 and 39A of the Directive Principles of State Policy is to achieve the concept of giving equal opportunity to all sections of the society. The Division Bench, thus, erred in reversing the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge. Hence, the Page 17 impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal No. 562 of 2011 is not only erroneous but also suffers from error in law as it has failed to follow the binding precedent of the judgments of this Court in the cases of Indra Sawhney and Valsamma Paul (supra). Therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. The judgment and order dated 24.11.2010 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.”

10. The High Court of Karnataka, has also considered a similar case in WP(C) No.24847 of 2022, wherein the petitioner sought a direction for issuance of a writ to correct the errors, which are depicted as he belonging to a Scheduled Tribe instead of a Scheduled Caste. That was also a case where a mistake, that was crept in while submitting the online application and that the mistake was noticed only later. The Karnataka High Court has, referring to the judgment in Ram Kumar Gijroya [supra] as well as the judgment in Pushpa v. Government, NCT of Delhi [2009 SCC OnLine Del 281], held in paragraph 14 as follows:

                   “14. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would now submit that a final select list is also notified by the Commission during the pendency of the writ petition and therefore, a direction is required to be given to the Commission to include the name of the petitioner in the select list according to his merit vis-a-vis the candidate who is less meritorious than that of the petitioner in the category of Scheduled Caste. Here again the learned Counsel appearing for the Commission submits that this would open Pandora’s box and become a precedent. I decline to accept the submission of the Commission, if this order opens up Pandora’s box; so be it, if it becomes a precedent; so be that. This Court would not turn a deaf ear to a cry of a Scheduled Caste candidate who has scored high marks, despite the trials and tribulations throughout that they face to lose the opportunity of getting selected for trivial reasons. The Commission ought to have corrected the trivial human error when the petitioner pointed it out at the time of document verification. Having not done so, the Commission cannot now contend that this order would open up Pandora’s box or become a precedent. It cannot be forgotten that, “to err is human”, infallibility is unknown to humanity.”

11. Admittedly, it is only a clerical mistake that has happened while uploading the online application. There is no dispute that the petitioner does not belong to a Scheduled Caste Community being ‘Cheruman-Hindu’. The entry made in Ext.P5 application as ‘Cheraman’ can only be a mistake. The document was verified by the respondent-PSC and the PSC does not have a case that the petitioner does not belong to ‘Cheruman’ community. The rights of the petitioner cannot be declined only for a minor mistake that has crept in while uploading the online application, that too considering that the petitioner belongs to a SC community. By interim order dated 07.10.2025, this Court had given a direction to the respondent-PSC to consider Ext.P8 objection filed by the petitioner to Ext.P7 show-cause notice and if no positive orders have been issued, the same shall be issued only after verification of the community status of the petitioner and also directed that the application shall not be rejected solely for the reason of the mistake. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that no such order has been issued. Without issuing such order, the name of the petitioner has been deleted by an erratum notification. Further it is seen that by interim order dated 17.11.2025 a direction was issued not to fill up the next vacant post allocable to ‘Cheruman’ Community and said order is in force till now.

                  Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances of the present case and the declaration of law as stated above, I am of the opinion that the claim of the petitioner is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

                  (i) The 1st respondent shall consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant in various Govt. owned Companies and Corporations/Board, pursuant to her inclusion in Ext.P2 rank list untrammelled by the spelling mistake in caste name recorded in the application and in OTV sheet , treating her as one belonging to ‘Cheruman’ Community, as evident from Ext.P1.

                  (ii) Further consequential orders shall be issued and steps shall be taken regarding the claim of the petitioner to the post of Junior Assistant in various Govt. owned Companies and Corporations/Board on the basis of the inclusion in Ext.P2 rank list within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order.