IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN &THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 201!1"TH SRA#ANA, 1$%7&A.NO. %$$ OF 201 '(IN &P'C(.2"$%7!201) *******************************************AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN &P'C( 2"$%7!201) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 1%*11*201)APPELLANT'S(!RESPONDENTS:************************1.KERALA PUBLIC SER#ICE COMMISSIONREPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARYKERALA PUBLICSER#ICE COMMISSION, PATTOMTHIRU#ANANTHAPURAM*"$ 00).2.THE SECRETARYKERALA PUBLIC SER#ICE COMMISSION, REGIONAL OFFICEERNAKULAM 'NEAR SOUTH RAIL&AYSTATIONEASTERN ENTRY TO&ER( * "+2 0%.BY AD#. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSCRESPONDENT'S(!PETITIONER:*************************ROSHINI K.SD!O.SHANKARAN NAMBOOTHIRI, &!O.RAJESH E.M.EDAPILLY MANA, SOUTH #A,HAKULAM, ALU#AERNAKULAM * "+% 10.R1BY AD#. SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYANR1BY AD#. SMT.R.RANJINITHIS &RIT APPEAL HA#ING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON%0.07.201,THE COURT ON07.0+.201THE SAME DAY DELI#ERED THEFOLLO&ING: C.RASHOK BHUSHAN,C.J.andA.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.==================================== W.A. No.399 of2!" ====================================#a$%d $&'( $&%)$&da* ofA+,+($, 2!" J U # - M E N .A(&o/ B&+(&an, C.J.This Writ Appeal has been filed against thejudgment dated 13.11.2014 in W.P(C) !.2"#3$ !f 2014b% &hi'h judgment( the learned )ingle *udge hasall!&edtheWrit Petiti!nfiledb%thepetiti!ner. The+erala Publi' )er,i'e C!mmissi!n (hereinafter referred t!as-theC!mmissi!n.) aggrie,edb%thejudgment has'!me up in this appeal.2. /rief fa'tsgi,ingriset!theWrit Petiti!nasemergedfr!mthepleadings !f theparties are0 TheC!mmissi!nin,itedappli'ati!ns &ithph!t!upl!aded!nline f!r Categ!r% !.41#211 f!r the p!st !f *uni!rAssistant2Casher2Assistant 3rade 442Cler5 3rade 42TimeW.A. No. 399 of 2!"60206+eeper 3rade442)eni!r Assistant2Assistant2*uni!r Cler5(et'. Petiti!ner( fr!mthe&ebsite!f theC!mmissi!nd!&nl!aded the details !f Categ!r% !.41#211 andsubmittedappli'ati!nf!rthep!st. Thelast datef!rsubmissi!n !f the appli'ati!n&as01.02.2012.Writtentest &as n!tified !n 01.0".2013. Petiti!nerd!&nl!aded the admissi!n ti'5et and identifi'ati!n'ertifi'atefr!mthe&ebsite!f theC!mmissi!n. Theidentifi'ati!n'ertifi'ated!&nl!adedb%thepetiti!ner'!ntained her ph!t!graph &ith name and date.Petiti!nerappeared in the &ritten e7aminati!n and hername &as in'luded in the sh!rt list !f su''essful'andidates published b% the C!mmissi!n !n23.08.2014. The C!mmissi!n ,ide letter dated01.0$.2014 'alled the petiti!ner t! appearin pers!n f!rd!'ument ,erifi'ati!n &ith the d!'uments menti!nedtherein. 9ne !f the d!'umentsre:uired t! be br!ught&as -passp!rt si;e ph!t! ta5en &ithin " m!nths..W.A. No. 399 of 2!"60306Petiti!ner appeared f!r the d!'ument ,erifi'ati!n !n1".0$.2014 &ith allthe re:uired d!'uments. The 2ndresp!ndent &asfull%satisfied&iththe,erifi'ati!n!fthe d!'uments pr!du'ed b% the petiti!ner. 7t.P1 n!tifi'ati!n &hi'h &as d!&nl!adedb%thepetiti!ner fr!mthe&ebsite!f theC!mmissi!ndidn!t '!ntainan%stipulati!nthat theph!t!graphupl!aded sh!uld bethe !ne ta5enafter 31.12.2010.The detailed instru'ti!ns as stipulated in >7t.P1 that isgeneral'!nditi!nsgi,en inPart 44&ere n!t an%&heretra'ed !ut !n !nline. The re:uirement !f ph!t!graphW.A. No. 399 of 2!"60806being ta5en after 31.12.2010 being n!t upl!aded in the&ebsite !f the C!mmissi!n(petiti!ner '!uld n!t '!mpl%&ith that part !f the re:uirement.?ad she been a&arethat the ph!t!graph sh!uld be the !ne ta5en after31.12.2010( she '!uld ha,e easil% submitted theph!t!graph ta5en after 31.12.2010.4t is stated that atthe time &hen the d!'uments &ere ,erified shepr!du'ed ph!t!graph ta5en &ithinsi7 m!nths fr!m thedate !f ,erifi'ati!n and thusthe said '!nditi!n &as full%satisfied b% the petiti!ner. @earned )ingle *udge &hilehearing the Writ Petiti!n dire'ted the)tanding C!unself!r theC!mmissi!n t!submithard '!p% !f the general'!nditi!ns d!&nl!aded fr!m the &ebsite t! indi'ate thatatan%timethe&ebsite'!ntainedtheinf!rmati!nin:uesti!n. /ut the learned )tanding C!unsel '!uld n!tsubmit the hard '!p% d!&nl!aded fr!m the &ebsite !fthe C!mmissi!n t! indi'ate that the inf!rmati!n in:uesti!n &as upl!aded in the &ebsite rather theW.A. No. 399 of 2!"60"06)tanding C!unsel submitted aneatl% t%ped '!p% !f theinstru'ti!ns &hi'h&as n!t a d!&nl!aded '!p% fr!m the&ebsite.4. The learned )ingle *udge held that !n fa'ts(the petiti!ner has made !ut a 'ase f!r issuing adire'ti!n f!r in'lusi!n !f her name in the ran5 list sin'e it&as n!t due t! an% fault !f her in n!t upl!ading theph!t!graphta5en after31.12.2010. The ph!t!graph&hi'h &as affi7ed &as ta5en !n 18.12.2010( i.e.( !nl%18da%sbef!rethestipulateddate. @earned)ingle*udge all!&ed the Writ Petiti!n dire'ting the C!mmissi!nt!in'ludethename!f petiti!ner intheran5list atappr!priate pla'e. @earned )ingle *udge further!bser,ed that if an% less merit!ri!us 'andidate than thepetiti!ner has been gi,en ad,i'e( his2her name shall n!tbe disturbed. Against the said judgment( theC!mmissi!n has '!me up in this appeal. 8. )hri P.C.)asidharan(learned )tanding C!unselW.A. No. 399 of 2!"60$06f!r the C!mmissi!n 'hallenging thejudgment !f thelearned )ingle *udge submitted that the learned )ingle*udge '!mmitted err!r in all!&ing the Writ Petiti!n&hereasthe'!nditi!nasstipulatedinthe!tifi'ati!ndated31.12.2011&hi'h&aspublishedinthe9ffi'ial3a;ette re:uiring -ph!t!graph upl!aded sh!uld be !f'!l!ur2bla'5 and &hiteta5en after 31.12.2010. &as n!t'!mplied. 4t is statedthat thesaid!tifi'ati!n&asa,ailableinthe&ebsite!f the3!,ernment !f +erala.?e further submitted thatthe ab!,e '!nditi!n &asals!!nthe&ebsite!f theC!mmissi!n&hi'hmight ha,ebeen ta5en !ut !f the &ebsitedue t! lapse !f time andma% n!t be a,ailable as !n date./ut that d!es n!tdisentitle the C!mmissi!n fr!m reje'ting the'andidature !f a 'andidate &h! has n!t '!mplied &ithab!,e said '!nditi!n. 4t is submitted that the issuehas been '!nsidered b% se,eral Ai,isi!n /en'hes !f thisC!urt and learned )ingle *udges &here it has been laidW.A. No. 399 of 2!"60106d!&n that the C!mmissi!n is full% entitled t! reje't the'andidature !f a 'andidatef!r n!n6'!mplian'e &ith the'!nditi!n !f the ph!t!graph bearing name !f the'andidate and date as spe'ified. ?e submitted thatbef!re the learned)ingle *udge '!p% !f the '!nditi!ns'!ntaining the af!resaid '!nditi!ns &as submitted. A'!p% !f the said d!'uments (in Bala%alam) ha,e beenpr!du'ed bef!re us. ?e submitted that in the!tifi'ati!n &hi'h &as published in the &ebsite !f theC!mmissi!n( ie.( >7t. P1 there &as a n!te( namel%(-f!rfurther details see the general '!nditi!ns gi,en in Part44.. ?e submitted thatthe general'!nditi!ns '!ntainedthe re:uirement !f ph!t!graph being ta5en after31.12.2010 and bearing the name !f the 'andidate.". @earned '!unsel f!r the Writ Petiti!nerrefuting the submissi!ns !f the learned )tandingC!unsel f!r the C!mmissi!n '!ntended that in the&ebsite!f theC!mmissi!n&here>7t.P1n!tifi'ati!nW.A. No. 399 of 2!"60#06&as upl!aded(it did n!t '!ntain an% re:uirement thatthe ph!t!grapht! be upl!aded sh!uld beta5en after31.12.2010.4t is submitted that the general'!nditi!nsas gi,en in Part 44 as menti!ned in >7t.P1 '!uld n!t bed!&nl!aded( it being n!t a,ailablein the &ebsite !f theC!mmissi!n. 4t issubmittedthat bef!rethelearned)ingle*udgeinspite!f aspe'ifi'dire'ti!nt!pla'ebef!re the C!urt hard '!p% !f the instru'ti!ns upl!adedin the &ebsite( '!ntaining the ab!,e '!nditi!ns( the)tanding C!unsel f!r the C!mmissi!n failed t!pr!du'ean% materialt! indi'ate that at an% p!int !f time theab!,e'!nditi!n&asupl!adedinthe&ebsite!f theC!mmissi!n.4tissubmitted that&hat&aspr!du'edbef!re the learned )ingle *udge &as the t%ped '!p% !fthe '!nditi!ns &hi'h &asn!t upl!aded in the &ebsite ashas been held b% the learned )ingle *udge in thejudgment.4t is submitted that Ai,isi!n /en'h judgmentsrelied !n b% the learned )tanding C!unsel f!r theW.A. No. 399 of 2!"601006C!mmissi!n &ere all'ases &here the 'andidates didn!t menti!n date !f ph!t!graph and name !f the'andidate. TheAi,isi!n/en'hheldthatintheab!,e'ir'umstan'estheappli'ati!nsufferedmaj!r defe'tand&as rightl%reje'tedb%theC!mmissi!n. 4t issubmitted that in the present 'asepetiti!ner=s name as&ell as date !f ph!t!graph &as ,er% mu'h there as ise,ident fr!m >7t.P2 &hi'h is the identifi'ati!n 'ertifi'ate!f thepetiti!ner d!&nl!adedfr!mthe&ebsite. 4t issubmitted that !nl% min!r defe't &hi'h is beinghighlightedb%theC!mmissi!nisthat theph!t!graphupl!aded b% the petiti!ner '!ntained the date18.12.2010 &hereas it !ught t! ha,e been after31.12.2010. 4t is submitted that 18 da%s= differen'e inthe ta5ing !f ph!t!graph &as n!t su'h a defe't &hi'hre:uired reje'ti!n !f the 'andidature.B!re s!( &henatthe time !f ,erifi'ati!n !f the d!'uments petiti!nerpr!du'edph!t!graph ta5en &ithin si7 m!nths fr!m theW.A. No. 399 of 2!"601106date !f ,erifi'ati!n and resp!ndent !.2 &as full%satisfied &iththe d!'umentspr!du'edatthetime!f,erifi'ati!n in'ludingthe ph!t!graph.Candidates &h!se'ured less mar5s than the petiti!ner &ere in'luded inthe ran5 list &hereas petiti!ner=s name &as n!t in'ludedduet!theab!,ereas!n. @earned'!unsel f!r thepetiti!ner als!submittedthat bef!rethepetiti!ner'!uld !btain an% benefit !f the judgment !f the learned)ingle *udge( unf!rtunatel% her husband died !n1#.03.2018 due t! une7pe'ted massi,e 'ardia' arrest.Withn!fault !f thepetiti!ner shehasbeendeniedjusti'e at the hands !f the C!mmissi!n. $. @earned '!unsel f!r the parties ha,e relied !n,ari!us judgments !f theApe7 C!urt andthis C!urt&hi'h shall be referred t! &hile '!nsidering thesubmissi!ns in detail.1. Cr!mthesubmissi!ns!fthe learned'!unself!r the parties and pleadings !n re'!rd( the f!ll!&ing areW.A. No. 399 of 2!"601206the issues &hi'h arise f!r '!nsiderati!n.I. W&%$&%0$&% Co11'(('on 2* an* 1a$%0'a3on0%4o0d50o6%d$&a$ $&%4ond'$'on(7'n($0+4$'on(0%,a0d'n, 5&o$o,0a5& $o 2% +53oad%d 'n $&% 8%2 ('$%2% $a/%n af$%0 3!.!2.2! 8a( a6a'3a23% 'n $&% 8%2('$%of $&% Co11'(('on9II. W&%$&%0 $&% 3%a0n%d S'n,3% J+d,%4o11'$$%dan*%00o0 'na33o8'n,$&% W0'$ :%$'$'ond'0%4$'n,$&%Co11'(('on$o'n43+d%$&% na1%of5%$'$'on%0 8&'3% $&% 5&o$o,0a5& +53oad%d 2* $&%5%$'$'on%0 'n&%0 a553'4a$'on8a(da$%d!".!2.2!8&%0%a( '$ o+,&$ $o &a6% 2%%n af$%0 3!.!2.2!9#. C!r ans&ering the ab!,e issues( pleadings !nre'!rd ha,e t! be l!!5ed int!. Petiti!ner=s 'ateg!ri'al'ase in the Writ Petiti!n is thatalth!ugh in the b!tt!mp!rti!n!f >7hibit P1!tifi'ati!nit &as statedthatgeneral '!nditi!ns are gi,en in Part 44( despite allearnest eff!rts( Part 44 '!uldn!tbetra'ed!ut!nline.Petiti!ner=s 'lear pleading &as that Part 44 as n!tified inW.A. No. 399 of 2!"601306the!tifi'ati!n&asn!t publishedinthe!nlineande,en !n date Part 44 is n!t a,ailable in the &ebsite.Thef!ll!&ingpleadings&eremadeinparagraph2!f theWrit Petiti!n0,houghit isgi$eninthebottomportionof thenotification that general conditions are gi$en in part II#despiteallearnest efforts#%artIIcouldnotbe tracedout#online.,he petitionerconformed that %art II# as specified inthe notification# hasnot been published# online.-$en nowpart II is not a$ailable in the web site. ,he petitioner alsocompliedwithall theconditionsandinstructionsgi$entothecandidates# includingsubmissionof application# withphoto uploaded.,he last date for submission of applicationwas on !.2.2012.,he petitioner applied$eryearlyto thelast date..ubse/uently# date of written test was notified as!.0.2011. ,hepetitioner downloadedtheadmissionticketandidentification certificate of thepetitionerfromthewebsite of the 1strespondent# for the e2amination. ,hephotocopy of the admission ticket and identificationcertificate is produced herewith and marked as -2t.%2.3rom-2t.%2# it is clear that the identification certificatebears photograph of the petitioner with name and date as14.12.2010.+W.A. No. 399 of 2!"60140610. Th!ugh the C!mmissi!n filed a '!unteraffida,it there &as n! paragraph &ise repl% t! thepleadings !f the petiti!ner. 4n paragraph $ thef!ll!&ing &as stated b% the C!mmissi!n.-Cr!m the ab!,e fa'ts it is 'lear that)mt.7hibit P1 !tifi'ati!n&here a''!rding t! it petiti!ner=s upl!aded ph!t!graph&as n!t '!nf!rming. Alth!ugh in paragraph 1 it &asW.A. No. 399 of 2!"601806spe'ifi'all% pleaded that in ea'h issue!f P)C /ulletinthere &as spe'ifi' and unambigu!us instru'ti!nsregarding upl!ading !f ph!t!s and press release in thisregard &as als! gi,en in the leading ne&s papers andinstru'ti!ns regardingupl!ading!f ph!t!s ha,ebeenp!sted !n the &ebsite !f the C!mmissi!n n! material&aspla'edbef!rethelearned)ingle*udget!pr!,ethat instru'ti!ns regarding upl!ading !f ph!t!s &erep!sted !n the &ebsite !f the C!mmissi!n. The learned)ingle *udgehas re'!rded findingsin the ab!,e '!nte7tin paragraphs 18 and 1" &hi'h are t! the f!ll!&ingeffe't0-14. 5n the last occasion when the matter was heardin part#this(ourt directedthe learned.tanding(ounseltosubmit ahardcopyof thegeneral conditionsdownloadedfromthewebsitetoindicatethat at anypoint of timethewebsite contained the information in/uestion. ,oday# thelearned .tanding (ounsel did submit the information which isa neatly typed copy# but not a hard copy directly downloadedfromthewebsite. &ehassubmittedthat inthelight of theW.A. No. 399 of 2!"601"06changein the web portalname# theinformation could ha$ebeen remo$ed from the website. ,his contention# I am afraid#cannot becountenanced. ,herespondents donot disputethat e$en now the official website of the respondents contains-2hibit %1 notification# but not the alleged informationconcerningthegeneral conditions. &adit beenthecaseofremo$ing the information owing to the fact that therecruitment process was complete# it makes sense to e2pectthat theentireinformation# including-2hibit %1notification#must ha$e been remo$ed.10. ,helearned.tanding(ounsel hasbeencandidenough in admitting that this method of pro$iding informationthrough website was not there in the initial phase6 it was takenrecourse to only from 2010 onwards. 7oing by thedemonstrablycon$incingsubmissionof thelearnedcounselfor the petitioner that at no point of time# including today# didaccessing the respondent's website lead to any generalconditions# the petitioner could not ha$e been at fault inaffi2ing anolder photograph. I ha$eused the e2pression89emonstrably: for thereasonthat today#too# thelearned(ounsel has brought the laptop with wi;fi connection todemonstrate before the (ourt that -2t.%1# though stilla$ailable in the online# does not ha$e the general conditionsanne2edto it. (oupledwith this is the factthatthe learned.tanding (ounsel for the respondent could not produce anyhard copy ofthose general guidelinesdownloadedeitherinthepast or inthepreset. I am# therefore# constrainedtoconcludethat all alongthewebsitehasnot containedtheinformation or# in the alternati$e# it was not readily accessible.W.A. No. 399 of 2!"601$06Indeed# onmorethanoneoccasion# thelearned9i$isiona)Bof that notification re/uiredthat the application shall include a photograph taken within aperiod of si2 months of the application and with the name ofthe applicant and the date of the recording of thephotograph written on that photograph. )dmittedly# thepetitioner did not write her name or enter the date ofphotographing# onthephotographwhichwasprintedanduploadedwhilesubmittingtheapplicationon;line. @%.(re=ected that application.,he petitioner's challenge againstthat stands turned down by the @erala )dministrati$e,ribunal. In doing so# the ,ribunal has followed theunreported =udgment dated 04"0B"2011 of a learned .ingleCudge of this (ourt >Dr. Custice (. ,. Ea$ikumar) in *% >()o. 1BB0B of 2011. &ence this original petition by her.+4n the ab!,e 'ase the petiti!ner did n!t &rite her name!r enter theph!t!graph!nthebasis !f &hi'htheW.A. No. 399 of 2!"602306C!mmissi!n reje'ted the appli'ati!n. Batter &as ta5ent! the +erala Administrati,e Tribunal &hi'h reje'ted the'laim !f the petiti!ner against &hi'h the Writ Petiti!n&asfiled. TheAi,isi!n/en'hintheab!,e'aselaidd!&n in paragraph 3 and 4 as :u!ted bel!&0 1. &a$ing heard learned counsel for the petitionerandthelearnedcounsel for the@%.(# weseethat thedecisioninDano=kumar >supra) wasrendered inacasewherethechallengewasagainst theactionof the@%.(e2tending opportunity to rectify the defects. )s noted by thelearned .ingle Cudge in that case# @%.( had grantedopportunityto rectify what it termed as 'minor defect'to allcandidateswhohadcommitted suchminordefects.7hibitP4sheappeared!n1".0$.2014andg!t her d!'uments,erifiedin'ludingthepassp!rt si;eph!t!graphta5en&ithin si7 m!nths. 4t is pleaded that resp!ndent !.2&as full% satisfied &ith the,erifi'ati!n !f d!'umentsandph!t!graph. Thusat thetime!f ,erifi'ati!npassp!rt si;e ph!t!graph ta5en &ithin si7 m!nths &assubmitted and the ph!t!graph &as g!t ,erified. 4n theW.A. No. 399 of 2!"602"06ab!,eba'5gr!undit 'ann!t besaidthat thelearned)ingle*udgehas'!mmittederr!r inall!&ingtheWritPetiti!n setting aside the reje'ti!n !f the 'andidature.1#. An!ther Ai,isi!n/en'hjudgment &hi'hhasbeen relied !n b% the C!mmissi!n is Sreejesh Vijayanv. State of Kerala (2014 1! K"# 1003).4n the ab!,e'ase als! the ph!t!graph upl!aded al!ng &ith theappli'ati!n did n!t '!ntain the name anddate !n &hi'hph!t!graph &as ta5en. The Ai,isi!n /en'h rel%ing !ntherati!!f itsearlier judgment inSasikala$scase(su%ra& has held the f!ll!&ing in paragraph 202. ,helearnedcounsel for thepetitioner madereference to the decisions in Fshakumari $. .tate of @erala#2011>4) @G,11andin*%>() os.109!9and10991of2012 referred to in Fshakumari's case. ,he =udgment in *%>()os.109!9and10991of 2012clearlyshowsthat thelearned Cudge did not proceed to lay down any principle oflaw# after ha$ing noted that the defects pointed outcannotbebrushedasideasimmaterial. ,helearnedCudgehadtaken a lenient $iew# as stated in that =udgment# to direct thatthe applications of the petitioners in those cases beW.A. No. 399 of 2!"602$06considered. *e further find that the Fshakumari's case>supra) is decided relying on the =udgment in *% >() os.109!9 and 10991 of 2012 without stating any furtherprinciple of law. *e deem it appropriate to now point out thatas stated in .asikala's case >supra)# the whole ob=ect soughtto be achie$ed is to ensure not only transparency# but also toe2clude the possibility of any allegation as to impersonation.It hastoberememberedthat suchallegationscancomeagainst the %.( and the process of e2amination andselection# e$enafter theselectionprocessiso$er. It was#therefore# that the $iew e2pressed in *% >() o. 1BB0B of2011 was affirmed in .asikala's case >supra).+There'ann!tbe an%disputet! the rati!!f theAi,isi!n/en'h as laid d!&n ab!,e. Asn!tedb% theAi,isi!n /en'h( the!bje't !f in'ludingsu'h '!nditi!n&as t! ensure n!t !nl%transparen'% but als! t! e7'ludethe p!ssibilit% !fan% allegati!n as t!impers!nati!n.4nthe present 'ase there &as n! brea'h!f an%transparen'% n!r there is an% allegati!n !fimpers!nati!n.20. 9ther judgments relied !nb% the learned)tandingC!unsel f!r theC!mmissi!nla% d!&ntheW.A. No. 399 of 2!"602106same rati! as stated inSasikala$s case (su%ra&.21. Wearethus!f the'lear !pini!nthat thejudgment relied!nb%the)tandingC!unsel f!r theC!mmissi!n are distinguishable and the learned )ingle*udge in the judgment did n!t ta5e an% ,ie& &hi'h is'!ntrar% t! the ,ie& laid d!&n b% the Ai,isi!n /en'hjudgment. 22. /e( that as it ma%( e,en if it is assumed thatthe C!mmissi!n &as justified in reje'ting the'andidature !f the petiti!ner( the ab!,e &as a fit 'ase&here?ighC!urtine7er'ise!f &ritjurisdi'ti!nunderArti'le 22" !f the C!nstituti!n '!uld ha,e interfered inthematter. TheApe7C!urt in #. C. 'asa%%av.#.(a)a%%a an* another (1#84 )C 440) laid d!&n thes'!pe!f Arti'le22"is,er%&ideand'anbeusedt!remed% injusti'e &here,er it is f!und. 23. The Ape7 C!urt inState of Punjab v.Shamlal +urari(D1#$"E 1)CC$1#) had!''asi!nt!W.A. No. 399 of 2!"602#06'!nsider the '!nse:uen'e !f n!n6'!mplian'e !f