IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2008 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 8934 of 2008(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. R. MANOJ, LAVILA VEEDU, PARAKKUNNU P.O. NAVAYIKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 2. S. BINUKUMAR, RADHA NIVAS, T.C.2/1699 GOWREESAPATTOM P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695 004. 3. GOPU S.PILLAI, SURABHI HOUSE CHEMPRASSERY, PANDIKKADU (VIA) MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 521. BY ADV. SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (HIGHER EDUCATIONAL DEPARTMENT), SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY BUILDINGS, PALAYAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SHRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC. G.P. SHRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.8934 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 25th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are aspirants for the post of Lecturers in Government Colleges, for which the Public Service Commission has invited applications for selection. They are projecting an anomaly in the matter of awarding weightage marks for qualifying examination. Their grievance is that persons who obtained degree through different scheme of examinations are treated equally, although they are unequals. The contention is that persons who passed examination in the semester system get much higher marks than those who passed degree in other schemes, because of internal marks given to them, and therefore, the same weightage marks given to unequals is violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioners and others. The petitioners, therefore, seek appropriate remedial action in the matter for which they have sought intervention of the University by filing Ext.P9 representation. 2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the PSC submits that this question was considered by a Division Bench of w.p.c.8934/08 2 this Court in Sajan N.Menon v. State of Kerala [2007(4) KLT 126], wherein dealing with similar contentions, the Division Bench has held that in the absence of a better system suggested, the PSC cannot be found fault with in following the present system, which according to them, to a large extent though not fully, eliminate inequality. 3. However, the petitioners now seek only a direction to the University to take appropriate remedial measures in the matter so that in future selections appropriate action can be taken in the matter by recruiting authorities. They, therefore, confine their relief for a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P9 expeditiously. 4. After hearing both sides, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P9, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.8934/08 3