IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2010 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 36647 of 2010(R) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- JAYAKUMAR K.V.,S/O.HARIDAS, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, KANIMANGALAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DILEEP KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REP.BY THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, ERNAKULAM PIN-682031 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY LAW DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1 R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P. NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.36647 OF 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a practising lawyer, who participated in the selection process for appointment of District Judges conducted by the High Court of Kerala. A written test was conducted. Marks were awarded to each candidate. Later on, the High Court decided to grant moderation in order to ensure sufficient candidates in the rank list, for satisfying the principles of reservation in appointments. Granting of moderation was set aside by this Court in the judicial side, which was confirmed by the Supreme Court. As a result, only persons, who scored the minimum prescribed marks in the written examination, were considered for selection. The petitioner did not score the minimum marks. He failed by one mark each in two papers. The petitioner now seeks the following reliefs: “A. The petitioner is entitled to get grace mark to the tune of one mark in each of the papers where he has secured only 99 marks and accordingly eligible for the cut off marks of 50% for written test conducted for the post of District Judges; W.P.(C)No.36647/10 2 B. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or such other Writ or order directing the first respondent to grant one mark in each of the papers in which the petitioner secured only 99 marks in the written test for District Judges. C. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or such other Writ or order directing the first respondent to decide and dispose of the Ext.P5 representation submitted by the petitioner.” The contention of the petitioner is that there was a practice of granting grace marks to those who failed by one mark in earlier selection processes. But, the petitioner has not produced any material in support of his contention. I am of opinion that the grace marks can also be given only on the basis of specific decision taken in that regard by the High Court. If there is such a decision, it is not difficult for the petitioner to obtain and produce such decision. He has not produced any such decision. He has not even averred that there was a decision by the High Court to grant grace marks, who failed by one mark in this selection. Admittedly, the petitioner did not score the minimum marks. Except a bald statement that in earlier selections there was a practice of granting grace marks, the petitioner has not produced any materials in support of the same. Instead, the petitioner has raised allegation that the answer papers have been destroyed in haste. In Ext.P4 it has been specifically stated that the W.P.(C)No.36647/10 3 answer papers were destroyed only after the issue regarding selection was ultimately settled by the Supreme Court, that too after obtaining approval from the competent authority, which was intimated to the petitioner by Ext.P4. Without challenging Ext.P4 or seeking any relief in respect of the same, the petitioner has raised the allegation without support of any materials, which cannot be countenanced. The petitioner has also not proved any satisfactory material to show that the petitioner is entitled to grace marks, so that he can be included in the further selection process. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.36647/10 4 W.P.(C)No.36647/10 5