IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2008 / 28TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 37133 of 2007(U) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- PRAMEELA P., D/O.LATE K.KUNHIRAMAN ADIYODI, PANAYANTHATTA HOUSE, ECHIKULANGARA, P.O.PILICODE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. PIN - 671 353. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, KASARAGOD DIST. BY SRI. P.C. ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, PSC – R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/07//2008, THE COURT ON 19/08/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.37133/2007 U APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD. 9/02/2007 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT P.S.C.OFFICER, KASARGOD. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE MEMO FOR DICTATION TEST FOR SCHEDULED TO 6/10/2007. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE EXAMINATION PROGRAMME FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 2007 ISSUED BY THE PSC. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENTS/SHORTHAND DICTATORS ISSUED BY THE PSC. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE CLAUSE 324 OF THE PSC OFFICE MANNUEL. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM WHICH APPEARED IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DTD. 7/10/2007 AND MALAYA MANORAMA DAILY DTD. 7/10/2007. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY DEEPA P. AND OTHERS INCLUDING THE PETITIONER. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE FAX SENDING REPORT TOGETHER WITH POSTAL RECEIPT DTD. 6/10/2007. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 18/11/2007 FILED BY SMT. DEEPA T.K.V. TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PSC. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 18/11/2007 FILED BY SMT. DEEPA.P. EXT.P11; COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 8/10/2007 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN F THE PSC. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 24/01/2008 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF KASARAGOD MUNICIPALITY. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 30/01/2008 ISSUED BY INFORMATION OFFICER UNDER THE MUNICIPAL OFFICE. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss V. GIRI, J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO.37133 of 2007 --------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner applied for the post of Confidential Assistant Grade II in Kasaragod District pursuant to the notification issued by the Public Service Commission. The selection consists of written test in the OMR form and a dictation test. The dictation test was held on 6.10.2007. The format for the dictation test provided a passage in English consisting of 400 words to be read in five minutes (80 words per minute). The candidate was to take down the passage in short hand and then transcribe it in long hand using ink within one hour. It is the petitioner's case that 36 candidates appeared for the dictation test. They were divided into two batches. The petitioner was included in the first batch. The dictation for the first batch commenced at 8.00 a.m. and ended at 8.05 a.m. The specific case of the petitioner is that for about three minutes during the dictation, the municipal siren was blaring and the candidates were not in a position to hear properly on account of the siren. The Municipal office WPC.37133 /2007 2 building is situated nearby in close proximity to the place where the dictation test was held. Ext.P4 contains the special instructions given by the Service Commission to the Superintendents/Shorthand dictators in the matter of conducting the dictation test. Similar instructions are contained in the Public Service Commission Manuel as such. The relevant portion of the same is produced as Ext.P5. Particular reference is made to clause '6' of Ext.P4, which reads as follows:- “For the dictation all the candidates in each batch may be seated together near the person who gives the dictation in such a manner so as to ensure that the dictation is clearly audible to all the candidates. The passage should be dictated in a loud and distinct voice once and once only no words or phrase being repeated. No punctuation stop being mentioned and no spelling of any word being given. The passage to be dictated is marked into portions of one minute duration and each of those is sub divided into portions of a quarter minutes duration. The reader with a watch in hand ( a watch provided with a second hand) will WPC.37133 /2007 3 be able to notice at each quarter minute how far he is adhering strictly to the speed. An oblique line will mark the first. Second and third quarter minute and two oblique lines will mark the completion of one minute. The numerals in the margin will mark the complete minute. It is important that the dictation should be uniform. (It is not enough that the whole passage is dictated in the time allowed.)” 2. Reference is also made to the provisions contained in Ext.P5 providing for deduction of marks for mistakes committed in the dictation test. 1/4th of a mark is deducted for each word omitted or added. Half mark is deducted for each wrong word. It is of utmost importance that the candidates are in a position to hear the passage dictated clearly and without any disturbance. The Public Service Commission should have ensured that the dictation test was conducted without any external disturbance. At any rate having been apprised of the fact that there was an intrusive disturbance by way of the municipal siren blaring at close proximity to the place where the dictation test was being WPC.37133 /2007 4 held, the Commission should have taken steps to conduct a fresh dictation test atleast for the benefit of the first batch of students who were subjected to the dictation test from 8.00 a.m. to 8.05 a.m. Ext.P7 complaint was submitted immediately after the test. Ext.P8 fax report would evidence that the complaint was sent on the date of dictation test itself. Another complaint was given by yet another candidate as Exts. P9 and P10. The petitioner submitted Ext.P11 before the Chairman on 8.10.2007. The writ petition was filed when it was found that the Public Service Commission was not willing to conduct a fresh dictation test. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Public Service Commission. The relevant portion of the said counter affidavit reads as follows:- “ It is most respectfully submitted that the Public Service Commission had directed its Secretary, to conduct an enquiry in this regard. Accordingly the Secretary conducted an enquiry, obtained statements of Sri.Karunakaran, the District Officer, Kerala Public Service Commission, Kasaragod, Sri.A.Karunakara, Head Master GHSS Kasaragod, who was the Chief Superintendent, Sri.Ajith Kumar, Section Officer, Kerala Public Service WPC.37133 /2007 5 Commission, District Office, Kasaragod, who was the Additional Chief Superintendent, Smt.M.Geetha, Confidential Assistant, Collectorate, Kasaragod, who was appointed as the dictator for the dictation test held on 6.10.2007 and also the petitioner and Sri.Madhusoodanan, the petitioner's brother. As per the statements of Chief Superintendent, Additional Chief Superintendent and the dictator, the blaring of siren lasted only for about 30 seconds and it was not too loud to give any trouble to the candidates. More over, at that time the dictator had read the passage in a very loud voice so that siren call shall not cause any disturbance to the candidates to take down the dictation. The Chief Superintendent at the examination centre, Sri.Karanakara, GHSS Kasaragod, had also reported that at the time of dictation he was present in the hall, behind the candidates and the dictation was clearly audible to him even at the time of siren call. It is also reported that none of the candidates who attended the dictation test in the 1st batch had raised any complaints regarding the siren call during the dictation or after the end of dictation. It is most respectfully submitted that as per the statements of the Chief Superintendent, WPC.37133 /2007 6 Additional Chief Superintendent and the dictator who were the officers in charge of the dictation test, the siren call from the Municipality during the dictation held for the 1st batch which lasted for only about 30 seconds and the sound had not caused any hardship to the candidates as the dictator had read the passage loudly so that the candidates could take down the dictation without any difficulty. The dictation was clearly audible to each and every candidate at the time of siren call also and as such there was no disturbance during the dictation. Any of the candidates including the petitioner did not complain at the time of dictation that the passage read out was not audible to them. It is most respectfully submitted that the Secretary, had submitted a report dated 19.11.2007 to the Commission. The finding was that the dictation test was conducted in a smooth and fair manner and as such there was no need to cancel the test held on 6.10.2007.” A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. 4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Kaleeswaran Raj and the learned Standing Counsel for the WPC.37133 /2007 7 Public Service Commission Sri. Alexander Thomas. 5. Pursuant to my order dated 14.2.2008 Sri.Alexander Thomas made available the report dated 19.11.2007 submitted by the Secretary of the Commission and referred to in the counter affidavit. I have gone through the said report as also copies of the statement appended to the same. 6. Sri.Kaleeswaran Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Public Service Commission Manual lays down the manner in which the dictation test was to be held. It is admitted that the municipal siren was blaring atleast during a portion of the time when the test was held. Errors while transcribing the dictated passage obviously lead to negative marks. All the candidates are expected to be dealt with uniformly in any selection conducted by the Public Service Commission. There was intrusive external disturbance by way of the municipal siren blaring during the period from 8.00 a.m. to 8.05 a.m., the Public Service Commission should have in all fairness taken a decision to conduct a fresh dictation test as such or atleast for those candidates who felt that their performance was detrimentally affected on account of the external disturbance. WPC.37133 /2007 8 7. It has to be found from the materials on record that the municipal siren was blaring for a period of time when the dictation was being held. But the question is whether the Public Service Commission should be directed to conduct a fresh dictation test. Though there is no specific provision as such brought to my notice, governing a situation of this kind, I do not have any doubt in my mind that it would be open this court to direct the Public Service Commission to conduct a fresh dictation test, if this court is compelled to come to the conclusion that part of the selection conducted by the Public Service Commission is to be held as vitiated on account of the intrusive external disturbance which was so perversive as to the render selection the itself as bad. Mr.Alexander Thomas, learned counsel for the Public Service Commission submits that the complaint filed by some of the candidates including the petitioner was taken note of seriously by the Commission and it is therefore that the Secretary of the Commission himself was authorised to conduct an enquiry. The secretary submitted a report on 19.11.2007. Appended along with the report was the statement given by the Chief Invigilator for the dictation test held on 6.10.2007, Sri. A WPC.37133 /2007 9 Karunakaran, Headmaster of the Girls Higher Secondary School, Kasaragod, statement of the person who conducted the dictation Smt. M.Geetha, Confidential Assistant in the Collectorate at Kasaragod. Sri. Ajith Kumar, Section Officer in the District Public Service Commission office at Kasaragod and a statement of the petitioner as such. Reference is also made to the statement given by P.Madhusoodanan, brother of the petitioner who also happens to be an Assistant in the Kannur District Office of the Public Service Commission. The report shows that siren was blaring for a short time during the period of dictation. But apparently, Smt.Geetha, the person who conducted the dictation made a provision to counter the said external disturbance by increasing her voice to enable her to be heard by the candidates during the period of dictation. She had also slowed down the speed of the dictation during that time to enable the candidates to follow her voice better. Siren was blaring for about 30 seconds and the dictation lasted for five minutes. It is true that the petitioner had approached the Chief Invigilator after the test but apparently her anxiety was whether she had written her register number appropriately. The complaint against the disturbance WPC.37133 /2007 10 caused by the blaring of the siren was raised only well after the test itself was over. The Public Service Commission came to the legitimate conclusion that the disturbance complained of cannot be characterised as one which should justify the conduct of a fresh dictation test as such. 8. Having heard counsel on both sides and having perused the report submitted by the Secretary of the Public Service Commission and the statement appended thereto, I am of the view that there are no circumstances in the instant case which would justify a direction to the Public Service Commission to conduct a fresh dictation test as such. I take note of the fact that the Public Service Commission had responded to the complaint filed by the petitioner and some other candidates and an enquiry was conducted by a responsible officer, no less than the Secretary of the Commission. I do not also find any reason why the Chief Invigilator who happens to be the headmaster in a Government Higher Secondary school and the person who conducted the dictation, a Confidential Assistant working in the District Collectorate should give either a diluted or twisted version as regards the perversiveness of the disturbance that was WPC.37133 /2007 11 caused at the time of dictation. Mr.Kaleeswaram Raj refers to the well settled principle in administrative law that a person cannot be a judge to his own cause, to contend for the position that if the Public Service Commission was to deal with the complaint in a serious manner then an enquiry into the complaint should have been conducted by an external agency and not the Secretary of the Commission. Notwithstanding the proposition of law as such, I find it difficult to accept the submission. The Commission was not required to act as a judge of a cause. It is a constitutional body entrusted with the conduct of selection to various public services in the State. There would be several vicissitudes, which it would be required to deal with in the course of discharging its function and it would not be possible to lay down any strait-jacket formula or guideline for dealing with each one of the contingencies. The manual contains the manner in which the dictation test was to be held and in an ideal situation the dictation would have to be conducted in a quiet place with a person who conducts the dictation, dictating the words with such speed and regulation that 400 words are dictated over a period of five minutes. But external disturbance in the form of blaring of WPC.37133 /2007 12 municipal siren in a not too distant place is obviously not a contingency that could be specifically provided for in the Public Service Commission Manual. Therefore, when the siren started blaring, the person who conducted the dictation apparently had raised her voice and had also slowed down the speed of the dictation. This obviously made an allowance for the external disturbance. The question is whether the Public Service Commission is right in concluding that there are no circumstances which warrant a fresh dictation test as such. Unless I am in a position to find that the Public Service Commission has acted in a completely irresponsible manner or had shirked it's responsibility in deciding not to conduct a fresh dictation test inspite of the presence of over whelming material to the contra, I would not be justified in interfering with the selection as such. In my view, the Public Service Commission had acted promptly in instituting an enquiry to be conducted by the Secretary of the Commission and the decision taken by the Commission to accept the report of the Secretary does not seem to be vitiated in any manner. For all these reasons, I do not find my way to give any WPC.37133 /2007 13 direction to the Public Service Commission to conduct a fresh dictation test. The writ petition is bereft of merit and accordingly, it is dismissed. V. GIRI, JUDGE. pmn/