IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 27TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 3387 of 2009(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BITTU T.K., W/O. SHINE.N.D, THARAKAN PARAMBIL HOUSE, ARAKKULAM PO, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN 685 591. BY ADV. SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR SMT.NIKHILA SOMAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA STATE WARE HOUSING CORPORATION, HEAD OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (BUSINESS & ADMINISTRATION) 3. THE DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICER DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.MAJNU KOMATH, SC, K.S.W.C. FOR R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 3387 of 2009 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of February,2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner was sponsored for appointment to the post of Class –IV Grade II by the employment Exchange, in the second respondent Corporation. The interview was conducted on 9.9.2008 at the office of the State Ware House of the Corporation at Kattappana, Idukki District. She appeared for the interview based on Ext.P1 intimation letter. The interview was held on 9.9.2008. Ext.P2 is the rank list published by the Corporation subsequent to the interview. 2. The petitioner submits that she fulfilled all the criteria fixed by the respondents and had successfully performed in the interview. It is submitted that because of political influence there had been manipulation in the rank list and there was illegality in the conduct of selection process. It is submitted that when the petitioner enquired about the reason for non inclusion, she was informed that the petitioner was above age of 35 and therefore, she was not included. 3. As directed by this Court, the second respondent has filed a statement. It is submitted that rank list for the selected candidates who have participated at the interview was published wpc:3387 of 2009 2 on 23.01.2009. It is also submitted that the norms for recruitment to the post of class IV Grade II, the minimum marks required for selection/pass in the interview is 60%. The norms for recruitment to the pose of Class IV Grade II are produced as Ext.R2(B). It is pointed out that going by the performance in interview the petitioner has secured only 4 marks out of 10. i.e. 40% against the required 60% marks in the interview. Ext.R2 (C) is the copy of the evaluation sheet which shows that petitioner secured only 4 marks. The allegations regarding political influence etc. have also been denied by the second respondent. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s community has been wrongly shown as Scheduled Case in R2(C) but actually, she belong to OBC category. It is also submitted that the interview held was only a mockery and that the selection process is vitiated by arbitrariness etc. 5. Going by the marks secured by the petitioner, she was not eligible to be considered for the selection. Even though the petitioner alleged that there was political influence etc., it is seen from the mark sheet that she did not secure the required wpc:3387 of 2009 3 marks. The allegations raised by the petitioner are only wild in nature and are not supported by any tangible material. The Corporation has fixed minimum marks for the purpose of selecting the required candidates. It is not shown as to how the selection done is illegal or irrational. The second respondent cannot be found fault for fixing marks as per R2-(B). The selection process therefore, cannot be assailed as without adopting standard at all. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE bps