IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2011 / 17TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 16302 of 2007(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SREEJA V.S., AGED 35, D/O.VISALAKSHY AMMA, VELAMVILAKATHU VEEDU, PERUMKULANGARA, NEYYAR DAM P.O. 2. BINDU S.AGED 34 ,D/O.SARASWATHY AMMA, JYOTHI BHAVAN, ANACODE, VEERANAKAVU P.O. 3. BINI K.S., AGED 33. D/O.KAMALAMMA, DEVIKRIPA T.C. 6/1302 (2) ANAND LANE, KONATHUKULANGARA, VATTIYOOR KAVU P.O. 4. JAYASREE K., AGED 35, D/O.KAMALAMMA, T.C.6/1297-1, KONATHUKULANGARA PUTHEN VEEDU, CHITTATTINKARA, VATTIYOORKAVU P.O. MARTHUMKUZHY. BY ADV. SRI.S.V.PREMAKUMARAN NAIR SRI.R.T.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). No. 16302/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION. P2A. COPY OF THE HALL TICKET. P2B -DO- P2C. -DO- P2D. -DO- P3. COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.2.5.07. P4. COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD.17.3.2007. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 16302 of 2007 ================== Dated this the 7th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioners participated in the selection process conducted by the Public Service Commission for appointment to the post of Staff Nurse, in the Department of Health, pursuant to Ext.P1 notification issued by the Public Service Commission. In Ext.P1 notification, the qualification prescribed was a pass in SSLC obtained prior to 25.9.1996 or the qualification equivalent to the same. The Public Service Commission allowed all the candidates who have applied to participate in the written examination without scrutinising the applications and ascertaining whether all the applicants have the qualification of SSLC obtained prior to 25.9.1996. The qualifications of only the persons included in the short list published after the written test were scrutinized. Unqualified persons were removed from the list only while preparing the final ranked list. According to the petitioners, if the short list was prepared after weeding out the unqualified persons, the petitioners also would have been included in the short list and they would have been got a chance to be interviewed, in which case, they would have had a good chance of inclusion in the final ranked list. The petitioners, therefore, seek the following reliefs: “I. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to respondent to recast the short list of candidates in pursuance to Exhibit P1 weeking (sic) out ineligible candidates and without insisting for cut off marks. w.p.c.16302/07 2 II. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to include the petitioners in the sort list if they are otherwise entitled. 2. I have heard the learned standing counsel for the Public Service Commission and the learned Government Pleader also. 3. I am of opinion that the petitioners would have a case only if the petitioners allege and prove that any person, who had scored less marks than the petitioners in the written test, was included in the ranked list and that the ranked list did not contain sufficient number of candidates in proportion to the notified and anticipated vacancies. The petitioners have no such case. That means all the persons included in the final ranked list scored more marks than the petitioners in the written test. Therefore, the fact that in the short list unqualified persons had been included does not matter at all. The petitioners do not have any case that the number of persons in the ranked list is not proportionate to the vacancies available and anticipated at the time of preparation of the rank list. In the above circumstances, I do not think that I should exercise my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.16302/07 3