IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2011 / 29TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 28044 of 2011(E) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- SATHYAPALA S., U.D.CLERK, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KASARGOD, RESIDING AT MINDINADKA HOUSE,KUNDIKNA P.O. KASARGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTAM, THIRUVANANATHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANATHAPURAM - 695 001. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC., K.P.S.C. R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. LIJU STEPHEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 28044/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 24/05/2011. P2: COPY OF LETTER DATED 20/06/2011 ISSUED BY THE COMMISSION ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.28044 of 2011-E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21st October, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Government employee now working as an Upper Division Clerk in the Collectorate under the Revenue Department. He had been appearing test for the Departmental tests conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission (for short PSC). He had appeared for the departmental test but could not pass in all the papers. Therefore, he had been appearing for the subsequent chances. 2. According to the petitioner, in the above circumstances, from July, 2010 the syllabus of Revenue Test (Travancore) Ist paper, IInd Paper and IIIrd Paper and also Village Office Manual Test have been modified. A candidate who could not complete all the papers successfully were given two chances to pass in the supplementary tests that WP(C).No.28044/2011-E. 2 were conducted by the PSC in July, 2010 and January, 2011 respectively. Though the petitioner had passed Revenue Test Paper I and II in July, 2008 and July, 2010, he had to appear again in January, 2011 for Paper III. The results were withheld for want of identification certificate. Thereafter, the petitioner produced the necessary certificate and the results were published. It was found that the petitioner had secured only 32 marks. Therefore, he applied for rechecking of the marks of that particular paper. The proceedings are still pending. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that since the petitioner has passed some of the papers, he should be permitted to appear only for the remaining papers. The action of the PSC in insisting that he should appear for all the four papers again, according to him, is arbitrary and unsustainable. 4. I have heard the learned Government Pleader and also the Standing Counsel for PSC. WP(C).No.28044/2011-E. 3 5. Even on the petitioner's own showing, the Revenue Departmental Test has been unified with effect from July, 2010. Consequent to the change of syllabus, candidate who had not passed the earlier pattern of Departmental Tests were given two chances to appear for supplementary examinations and to pass the said tests. The petitioner appeared for the said two chances but he was not able to pass the tests. Having availed the two chances and failed, it is pointed out by the Standing Counsel for PSC, the petitioner cannot now turn around and question the change of syllabus of the test. 6. The Standing Counsel is perfectly justified in his submission that the petitioner cannot insist that he should be permitted to appear for the examinations in accordance with the earlier pattern, in spite of the unified syllabus that has been given effect to. The PSC had given two chances to persons like the petitioner to clear the back papers, which he had availed. Therefore, I am not satisfied that there is WP(C).No.28044/2011-E. 4 any unreasonableness in the impugned action. The petitioner has to pass the Departmental examinations, in accordance with the syllabus applicable at present. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned action. Therefore, this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, (Judge) Kvs/-