IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2008 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 10972 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SHYLAJA K, W/O.C.K.SASIDHARAN, PALATHARA HOUSE, ELAMPARA P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRTY, TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 4. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPR, BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).10972/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 7th day of April, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner applied for the post of Villageman pursuant to a notification issued by the PSC. Written test was conducted on 3.3.2007 and the petitioner was included in the short list. She was then called for a certificate verification and cycling test which was held on 10.3.2008. Petitioner could not participate in the cycling test because she was pregnant at that point of time. Apparently, her doctor had advised to be careful in subjecting herself to any strenuous physical activity on account of an earlier termination of pregnancy. According to the petitioner, she requested the competent Officer of the PSC who was present at the spot, to give her another opportunity at a later point of time. This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the PSC to provide further opportunity to the petitioner to prove her knowledge in cycling. W.P.(C).10972/2008 2 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Kaleeswaram Raj and the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC, Mr.Alexander Thomas. 3. Standing counsel submits that candidates were given a second opportunity on 22.3.2008. Apparently petitioner’s disability was continuing even on 22.3.2008, submits the counsel for the petitioner. Reference is made to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.1289/2000 as clarified in the judgment dated 26.3.2002 in R.P.535/2000. The observation made by the Bench in the last paragraph of the order in R.P is to the following effect. “Hence we dispose of this Review Petition with the only observation that the directions contained in the judgment was taking into account the fact that the selection list had not been finalised in that case, at the time when the motion was made and that the PSC will not be under an obligation to conduct fresh endurance test, if motion therefore comes after the finalisation of the selection list.” W.P.(C).10972/2008 3 4. Standing counsel for the PSC submits that since the problem faced by the petitioner is by no means uncommon, which seems to confront PSC in every selection which has a physical efficiency test as part of selection process, a direction in one case, would cause a problem to the PSC if it assumes the characteristics of a precedent. He submits that nevertheless in the present case, PSC has taken a decision to give another opportunity to persons like the petitioner, who were under a disability to attend the cycling test either on 10.3.2008 or on 22.3.2008, on a notified date. He submits that a press release will be issued in this regard between 9.4.2008 and 11.4.2008 and the date on which the test is to be conducted will be either on 17.4.2008 or any other date which may be notified in that regard. Submission is recorded. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that unlike in the case of physical efficiency test, in so far as the cycling test is concerned, the requirement is only W.P.(C).10972/2008 4 the knowledge in cycling and not proficiency in the activity which is prescribed as part of the selection process. Standing counsel for the PSC submits that this is a distinction which is always borne in mind by the persons who conduct the selection and uniform criteria are always applied in such cases. There is no reason why the petitioner should be under any apprehension in that behalf. Submission is recorded. 6. In the result, writ petition is disposed of directing the fourth respondent to afford to the petitioner one further opportunity to participate in the cycling test on a date to be notified by the PSC in this regard which obviously must be before the finalization of the rank list. It is made clear that only one opportunity need be granted in this behalf. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs