IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 30416 of 2011(B) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- THARUN P.C., PADATHARA, VAISYAMBHAGOM P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688005. BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN (IRIMPANAM) SRI.M.A.AUGUSTINE SRI.VARUGHESE CHERIAN SRI.B.SANDEEP (VENNALA) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE REGIONAL OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REGIONAL OFFICE, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC FOR PSC R3 BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.LIJU STEPHEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.30416/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 19-10-2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P2:- COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 8-11-2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J --------------------------------------------- W.P.(c)No.30416 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of November 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging his non-inclusion in the Unified Short List published by the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC for short). According to the petitioner, he was one of the candidates who had applied for selection and appointment to the post of Sub Inspector of Police (General Market), Category No.315 of 2007. He had appeared for the written examination conducted by the PSC. He understands that he has secured 46 marks which is the cut off marks for the reservation of persons belonging to the Hindu Ezhava Community. Therefore, he claims that his name should have been included in the Unified Short List. However, according to the petitioner, his name has been excluded arbitrarily. Therefore, he seeks the issue of appropriate orders and directions permitting him to appear for the descriptive test on 19-11-2011. He has also WPC 30416/2011 2 sought for the issue of a direction to communicate to him the marks obtained by him. 2. Adv. P.C.Sasidharan appears for the PSC. He disputes the contentions of the petitioner. He contends that the petitioner has filed this writ petition without properly ascertaining the facts. The petitioner does not know the marks that he was awarded in the written examination (objective type). He only presumes that he has obtained 46 marks in the said examination. He also does not know the reason for his non-inclusion in the Unified Short List. In spite of the above, he wants to attend the descriptive test that is scheduled to be held on 19-11-2011. The counsel therefore contends that this writ petition is only to be dismissed. 3. I have considered the contentions of the contesting parties. 4. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the respondents, the petitioner does not know the marks that he has been awarded in the written examination (objective type). He also does not know the reason for his non- inclusion in the Unified Short List prepared by the PSC. The petitioner only knows that his name has not been included in the Unified Short List. He claims that he is WPC 30416/2011 3 entitled to be issued with a direction permitting him to appear for the descriptive test that is scheduled to be held on 19-11-2011. Ext.P1 cannot be of any help to the petitioner because the said document only discloses that the minimum marks obtained by the persons who have been included in the Unified Short List from the Ezhava community is 46. As per Ext.P2, he has only sought information regarding the marks awarded to him in the written examination (objective type). In the absence of any material or evidence regarding the actual marks obtained by the petitioner, it cannot be ascertained whether he is a person who is entitled to be included in the Unified Short List or whether his exclusion therefrom is justified or not. For the above reasons I am not satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE jj/ P.S.to Judge