IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2010 / 20TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17965 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHIHABUDEEN, KANNEL KIZHAKKATHIL HOUSE, MUKUNDAPURAM P.O.,CHAVARA-VIA,KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 585. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.T.K.BIJU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, CUSAT P.O.,KOCHI-22,REP.BY.ITS REGISTRAR. 2. THE REGISTRAR, COCHIN UNIVERISTY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,CUSAT P.O.,KOCHI-22. 3. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REP.BY.ITS SECRETARY. ADV.SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI, SC, COCHIN UNIVERSITY-R1,R2 SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS-R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.17965 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is an applicant for selection to the post of Last Grade Servants, in various departments, in Kasargode District. He is also an applicant for selection to the post of Assistant under the Cochin University of Science and Technology. Admission Tickets have, now, been issued to the petitioner for appearing for the examinations as part of selection process to both the posts and unfortunately, both the examinations have been scheduled to be held on 12.6.2010. The venue of the test for the Last Grade Servants by the Kerala Public Service Commission is GHSS, Puzhathi in Kannur District where as the test centre in respect of the other examination by the Cochin University of Science and Technology is St.Aloysius Higher School, Kollam. In such circumstances, the petitioner had approached the first respondent University through Exts.P4 and P5 representations. It is to be noted that both the representations carried the request only for postponement of the date of the Assistant's test of the University to enable him to appear in both the aforesaid examinations. Since the first respondent did not take any action thereon, this Writ W.P.(C) NO.17965/2010 2 Petition has been filed by the petitioner mainly with the following prayer: “issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st and 2nd respondents to adjourn the examination scheduled to 12.6.2010 to the post of Assistant, to any other day, for enabling the petitioner to participate in the examination scheduled by the 3rd respondent to 12.6.2010 at Kannur;” 2. It is, thus obvious that in the Writ Petition also he reiterated only the same prayer made before the first respondent. Subsequent to the filing of this Writ Petition, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.7520 of 2010. The prayer in the said I.A is to direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to permit the petitioner to appear for the examination scheduled to be held on 12.6.2010 at the Kannur Centre. Thus, it is evident that virtually the attempt of the petitioner is to amend the prayer portion of the Writ Petition. In the context of the said prayer, the learned standing counsel for the first respondent University brought to my notice the specific instructions incorporated in the admit card issued to all the candidates including the petitioner for taking part in the Assistant's Examination. The learned standing counsel has also made available the form of the Admission Ticket issued in connection with the Assistant's Examination. Instruction No.3 therein reads thus: No candidate will be allowed to take the test without the W.P.(C) NO.17965/2010 3 admit card issued by CUSAT for the purpose. No request for change of test centre shall be entertained. 3. The petitioner has also produced the admit card issued to him by the first respondent along with the Writ petition as Ext.P2. The learned counsel has also fairly admitted that Ext.P2 has two pages. Conspicuously, the second page of the admit card is absent in Ext.P2. In other words, the petitioner has withheld the relevant page of the admit card that carried the aforesaid instruction. Perhaps the aforesaid instruction specifically incorporated in Ext.P2 Admit Card might be the reason that constrained the petitioner to approach the first respondent only with a prayer to postpone the examination. The said action on the part of the petitioner cannot be appreciated at all and it can be viewed only as a calculated and wilful act. In such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for in this writ petition. That apart, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that allowing the petitioner to partake in the examination at a different centre, that too, in a different district may result in leakage of secrecy of the examination. In order to keep the secrecy of the examination and to ensure that it is conducted fairly, the first respondent used to send only the required number of question papers, it is submitted. If that be so, the possibility as apprehended cannot be ruled W.P.(C) NO.17965/2010 4 out. It is the duty of the first respondent to conduct the examination in a fair and proper manner and, therefore, the concern of the first respondent cannot be said to be unreasonable. That apart, Exts.P4 and P5 representations are dated 1.6.2010 and 7.6.2010 respectively. That means, the petitioner had received Ext.P2 Admission Ticket earlier than 1.6.2010 and therefore, there is absolutely no justification at all for entertaining this Writ Petition moved belatedly that too, with a prayer to change the centre of an examination forming part of a selection process initiated for appointment in a University. For all these reasons, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs sought for in this Writ Petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.17965/2010 5 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C). NO. /2010 JUDGMENT June, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.17965/2010 6