IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2009 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 5151 of 2008(L) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI D. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TRAFFIC UNIT, KAYAMKULAM (KAMALALAYAM, MANKAMKUZHY (PO) MAVELIKKARA TALUK). BY ADV. MR.K.SASIKUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPUZHA. R2 & R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. SUDHA DEVI, R1 BY MR.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/03/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.5151/2008-L: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE PENSION PAYMENT ORDER ISSUED FROM THE CDA (PENSIONS) ALLAHABAD. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ADVICE MEMO DTD. 19/03/2003 ISSUED BY THE R.1. TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (TRAINING), POLICE TRAINING COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DTD. 21/04/2003. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 10/01/1978 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 02/05/2007 ISSUED FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT'S OFFICE. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 31/07/2003 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.1. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 26/11/2005 FORWARDED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.1. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 15/12/2005 FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ADDRESSED TO THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE FORWARDING THE REPRESENTATION. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 03/01/2006 FROM THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE TO THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE R.1. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 31/10/2006 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD 21/11/2006 FORWARDED BY THE R.1. TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.14: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 05/08/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE R.1. EXT.P.15: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 17/09/2007 ISSUED BY THE INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE R.1. TO THE PETITIONER. W.P.(C). NO.5151/2008-L: EXT.P.16: COPY OF THE APPEAL DTD. 05/10/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY OF THE R.1. UNDER THE INFORMATION ACT. EXT.P.17: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 01/11/2007 ISSUED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY OF THE R.1. UNDER THE INFORMATION ACT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. V.GIRI, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.5151 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd March, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is an Ex-Serviceman, who had 16 years of service in the Army. He responded to the notification issued by the Public Service Commission for the post of Sub Inspector of Police (Trainee) in the General Executive Branch. The petitioner was selected and included in the rank list. He has been subsequently appointed as Sub Inspector of Police (Trainee). He was rank number 83 in the final rank list published by the Public Service Commission. 2. The grievance highlighted in the Writ petition relates to the weightage of marks that the petitioner claims as an Ex- Serviceman, in the selection to the post of Sub Inspector of Police (Trainee). According to the petitioner, as per Exhibit P5 circular dated 10.1.1978 issued by the Public Service Commission, an Ex-Serviceman is entitled to two marks for his every completed year of service, subject to maximum of ten. He contends that he is, therefore, entitled to eight marks as weightage marks. It was further contended that if he was WP(C).5151/08 2 given eight marks, his ranking in the rank list would have been significantly higher. Hence, this petition. 3. His claim was considered and rejected by the Public Service Commission by Exhibit P13 pointing out that the selection process includes an interview as well. The weightage of marks given in favour of Ex-Servicemen, who have length of service in excess of ten years, but below twenty years, is two marks. On that basis, it is contended that adequate weightage of marks have already been given to the petitioner and his ranking as 83 is after taking into account such marks as well. 4. I called for the Kerala Public Service Commission Office Manual. Clause 163 thereof reads as follows: “163. Weightage To Ex-Service Men:- The Ex-Servicemen shall be given weightage of marks in accordance with the following procedure. 1. Weightage of marks will be awarded only to those ex-servicemen who receive pensionary benefits from the Defence Forces. No mark shall be given for period of service less than 2 years. Note:- 1. In order to prove that the candidate who has been relieved with WP(C).5151/08 3 pensionary benefits they shall produce pension payment orders or in lieu of the pension payment orders pension payment certificates if the fact of eligibility for pension is not clear from the discharge certificate. 2. Ex-servicemen who are in actual receipt of pension and those ex-servicemen who have been issued with discharge certificate prior to the date of discharge and are eligible for pension from the date of actual discharge are also entitled to weightage marks. 3. The Service in the Defence Forces which makes one qualified for the post in terms of qualifications fixed for the post will not be considered for the award of weightage marks. However, the excess of Defence Service over the prescribed length insisted on as qualification will be considered for the award of weightage marks. 2. The basis of award of marks as per the length of service shall be one mark for every two years of service subject to a maximum of ten marks provided that the weightage marks will be as WP(C).5151/08 4 follows in cases where the interview mark is 20/25/40. Length of Service Weightage of marks 20 years and above 3 marks 10 years and above but below 20 years 2 marks 2 years and above but below 10 years 1 mark” 4. Going by the Manual, the petitioner is entitled to only two marks for the 16 years of service rendered by him, since the proviso to Clause 163(2) applies to the present selection where interview was also part of the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Exhibit P5 circular takes a different view. I have gone through the Manual. Clause 163(2) of the Manual speaks about the basis of award of marks as per the length of service as one mark for every two years of service subject to a maximum of ten marks. The confusion seems to have arisen, since the words following the word “provided”, should have actually been specified as an independent proviso. Had it been so printed, it could have been seen that the proviso applies to the case where interview was part of the selection process. WP(C).5151/08 5 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the Manual is published in the year 2004, whereas Exhibit P5 circular is of the year 1978 and the same was in force, when the selection in question was undertaken. Learned Standing Counsel for the Public Service Commission submits that the Manual made available to the Court is only a re-print and there was nothing to show that a different provision was applicable in 2003. I find no reason why such a definite stand taken by the Standing Counsel for the Public Service Commission on the application of weightage of marks for the selection in question, should not be accepted. 6. There is yet another reason why I am not inclined to accept the plea made by the petitioner. As stated above, the petitioner has already been advised and appointed and his claim at present is for a higher ranking in the rank list, which will mean, there will be a revision in the date of his first effective advice. He will gain seniority over many other persons, who have been advised by enforcement of the rank list which was published on 31.1.2003. No such affected WP(C).5151/08 6 person has been made party to the petition . Therefore, for all these reasons, I do not find my way to grant any relief as prayed for by the petitioner. The Writ Petition is dismissed. V.GIRI, JUDGE vgs.