IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2011 / 5TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 19444 of 2011(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- JAYANANDAN.S., U.D.CLERK, DISTRICT REGISTRAR (AUDIT) OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, RESIDING AT JAYA BHAVAN, KIDAYOOR KONAM, VENPAKKAL.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 123. BY ADV. SRI.INNOCENT FRANCIS PAPALI. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DEPARTMENTAL WING, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN-695 014, REPRESENTED BY JOINT SECRETARY. 3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035. 4. DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-682 016. R1, R3 & R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. A.J. VARGHESE, R2 BY SRI. P.C. SASIDHARAN, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.19444/2011-E: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE DEPARTMENTAL TEST. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. E-4-27860/10 (2) DATED 21/03/2011 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR INSPECTOR GENERAL TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 05/05/2011 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE REGISTRAR INSPECTOR GENERAL. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.19444 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is presently working as Upper Division Clerk in the office of the District Registrar (Audit), Ernakulam. His promotion to the aforesaid post was subject to the condition that he should qualify himself in the departmental test within three years. Though the petitioner appeared for the departmental test in Kerala Stamp Act and Treasury Code, he could not pass the said tests. The contention of the petitioner is that the non- availability of the prescribed textbooks of Kerala Stamp Act and Treasury Code had prejudicially affected his prospects at the departmental test. It is contended that if the said materials were available, he could have qualified in the departmental test in time. In short, according to the petitioner, taking into account the non-availability of government published or recognised books on Kerala Stamp Act and Treasury Code, the respondents are bound to grant him extension of time by three years to pass the aforementioned tests. Ifs and buts cannot be a reason for this Court to interfere with and direct the respondents to grant extended time to the petitioner. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner could not pass the W.P.(C) NO.19444 of 2011 2 said departmental tests even after obtaining sufficient number of opportunities. It is a fact that a large number of candidates who appeared for the said departmental tests along with the petitioner had qualified themselves in the said tests. The petitioner cannot attribute non- availability of prescribed textbooks as a reason for his failure to get a pass in the said departmental tests. Evidently, the petitioner did not have a case that no textbooks on Kerala Stamp Act and Treasury Code are available. The failure on the part of the petitioner to get a copy of the recognised books on Kerala Stamp Act and Treasury Code cannot be a reason for this Court to grant relief sought for by the petitioner to grant extension of time by three years to qualify the departmental tests in the aforementioned circumstances. The petitioner did not have a case that during the prescribed period of three years, no departmental tests on Kerala Stamp Act and Treasury Code were conducted. Though such departmental tests were conducted, the petitioner could not pass in the said tests. When that be the position, merely by raising flimsy grounds, the petitioner cannot claim that he is entitled to extension of time by three years for qualifying in the said departmental tests. There is no merit in the Writ Petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.19444 of 2011 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.19444 of 2011 4