IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2009 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1931 WA.No. 2128 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.14598/2009 Dated 07/08/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER: -------------- ABDULRAHMAN.T.M.,AGED 21 YEARS S/O. T.K.MOHAMMED ALI, THOPPIL HOUSE EDAPPALLY PO, TOLL GATE, ERNAKULAM 682 024. BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM SRI.C.N.GOPAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S/RESPONDENT): --------------- THE DISTRICT OFFICER KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI. ALEXANDER THOMAS SC. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.10.2009, THE COURT ON 30/10/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------- W.A. NO. 2128 OF 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT Ravikumar, J. The appellant was the petitioner. He was an applicant for appointment to the post of Police Constable in the Armed Police Battalion in Ernakulam District. In connection with the selection process, he was called upon to appear for the physical efficiency test on 18.5.2009. In order to earn a place in the list of qualified candidates in the physical efficiency test, one has to qualify in five items out of eight. According to the respondent, the petitioner, though participated in all the eight items, had cleared only in four items, namely 100 metres run, High Jump, Long Jump and Pull up. But, according to the petitioner, besides clearing the aforesaid items, he had cleared the minimum qualifying distance in 'Shot put'in his third attempt. It is his case that after clearing the said minimum qualifying distance, he fell down due to muscle pull and consequently he was declared as failed in respect of the said event. This, W.A.NO. 2128/2009 2 according to the appellant, is illegal and, therefore, he sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to consider Ext.P2, his representation dated 25.5.2009, requesting for granting another chance to participate in the said item, rather putting the shot, and to consider his performance afresh for selection to the post of Police Constable. 2. The respondent herein has filed a counter affidavit and an additional counter affidavit in the Writ Petition refuting the claims and contentions of the appellant. According to the respondent, the appellant had participated in all the eight items, but had cleared only in the aforesaid four items. As regards 'shot put' he had failed to qualify in all his three attempts. It was after considering the contentions and on perusing the original of the result sheet that the learned Single Judge arrived at the conclusion that the case of the appellant/petitioner that he had qualified in the item “shot put” is unbelievable and accordingly dismissed the Writ Petition. This appeal is preferred against the said judgment. 3. Both parties have reiterated their contentions which were raised before the learned Single Judge. As noticed hereinbefore, the contention of the appellant is that he had cleared the minimum qualifying distance in respect of the item “shot put” and he fell down only thereafter and, W.A.NO. 2128/2009 3 therefore, there was no reason to disqualify him, rather to declare him as failed, in respect of that item. The specific contention of the respondent is that the appellant had failed to qualify in the said item. In the context of the rival contentions, Ext.P2 itself assumes relevance. There was no immediate response on the part on the appellant after his disqualification. He had submitted Ext.P2 representation only on 25.5.2009. His own version of the incident in Ext.P2 is as follows: “In all the above items I participated and got myself declared pass in 100 mtr.runs, high jump, long jump, pull up. In putting the shot though I crossed the mark, due to muscle pull, I got fell down in the line and the result declared as passed was further declared as foul.” (emphasis supplied) 4. Thus, going by the very version of the incident, admittedly, while putting the shot, the appellant had crossed the mark due to muscle pull. Whatever by the reason, such a throw cannot be styled as a legal throw and he cannot, therefore, claim that the said attempt should be taken as a legal one and he should be declared as passed in the said item merely because he had cleared the minimum qualifying distance. Based on the very admission on the part of the appellant/petitioner and the way in which he described the incident, no one can attribute any kind of illegality W.A.NO. 2128/2009 4 in the action on the part of the respondent in declaring him as failed in that attempt in respect of the said item. Admittedly, he had failed in respect of that item in the other two attempts as well. To be a valid throw in 'shot put', the shot putter should not cross the mark in that process. Therefore, the appellant was only to be declared as failed in respect of the said item based on his own admission that he had crossed the mark while putting the shot. That alone was done by the respondent. However, on account of the persuasive assertion on behalf of the appellant, we had directed for production of the original result sheet pertaining to the appellant in connection with the physical efficiency test held on 18.5.2009. Accordingly, the result sheet was produced. We have carefully perused the same. The result sheet would reveal that the appellant had failed in all his three attempts in regard to the item “shot put” and that he had participated in all the eight items and came out successful only in respect of four items, namely, 100 metres run, high jump, long jump and pull up. We are unable to find any kind of irregularity in the original result sheet produced by the respondent. Therefore, there is no reason to disagree with the finding of the learned Single Judge that the inconsistent case of the appellant/petitioner cannot be believed and there is no merit in the case set out by him. W.A.NO. 2128/2009 5 The appeal is, therefore, devoid of merits and it is liable to be dismissed. We do so. (KURIAN JOSEPH) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ W.A.NO. 2128/2009 6 KURIAN JOSEPH & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. W.A.NO. 2128/2009 JUDGMENT 30th October, 2009