IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2011/9TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 14302 of 2007 (C) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- MANOJ B.K., S/O.BALAKRISHNA KURUP, RESIDING AT 'BALARAJAM', CHOOLOOR, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS.SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN SRI.P.M.PADMANABHAN SRI.P.A.HARISH RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADDL.R3 TO R5 IMPLEADED 3. JAYARAJ K, KULAPALLI KIZHAKKUMKARA VEEDU, KOLLA, PANAVOOR P.O., NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 568. 4. MURALEEDHARAN S, PARAIKKOTTU KIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE, KALIYA ROAD P.O, CHELAKKARA (VIA), THRISSUR - 680 586. 5. PRAKASH R, ASOHAKA MANDIRAM, KOLLAYIL, KOLLAYIL P.O., MADATHARA (VIA), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 691 541. ADDL.R3 TO R5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN IA.6110/08 DATED 28.5.08 BY ADV. SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC FOR R1 BY ADV. V.V.NANDA GOPAL NAMBIAR BY ADV. SRI.V.SANTHARAM - FOR ADDL.R3 BY ADV. SRI.ANTO THOMAS BY ADV. SRI.LAKSHMEESH.S.KAMATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-05-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION CALLING FOR POST OF RESERVE DRIVER. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET CALLING THE PETITIONER FOR A WRITTEN TEST. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET CALLING THE PETITIONER FOR A PRACTICAL TEST. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE COMBINED LIST. EXT.P5 COPY OF THE SHORT LIST WHICH APPEARED IN MATHRUBHUMI THOZHIL VARTHA DATED 21.4.2007. EXT.P6 COPY OF THE LIST PRODUCED BY THE PETITIONER. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE cl C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ........................................... W.P.(C).NO.14302 OF 2007 ............................................. Dated this the 30th day of May, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioner who is an unsuccessful candidate in a selection process conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission for appointment to the post of Reserve Driver filed this writ petition mainly challenging Ext.P5 shortlist. The further prayers are for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to prepare a fresh list without considering the names of those candidates whose numbers appeared in Ext.P4 list and to conduct a fresh practical test under the supervision of this Court. 2. Pursuant to Ext.P1 notification issued by the 1st respondent for appointment to the post of Reserve Driver, the petitioner submitted an application. Thereafter, he was called for a written test and, thereafter, for a practical test. The petitioner could not succeed in the practical test. Before conducting the practical test, a physical test was also conducted. Practical test was conducted only thereafter. In the select list the petitioner's name did not figure. It is in W.P.(C).NO.14302 OF 2007 : 2 : the said circumstances that the writ petition has been filed challenging the selection process and also Ext.P5 shortlist. 3. Taking note of nature of the reliefs sought for in this writ petition, the petitioner was directed to take out notice through paper publication. The third respondent who was a candidate participated in the selection process, entered appearance pursuant to such publication. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case on behalf of the 1st respondent. Subsequently, an additional counter affidavit dated 31.10.2007 and yet another affidavit dated 27.2.2008 were also filed. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, it has been specifically stated that subsequent to the publication of Ext.P5 shortlist, the Commission has published a ranked list on 14.6.2007. It is to be noted that despite the receipt of the counter affidavit carrying such a specific contention, the petitioner has not chosen to amend the writ petition to challenge the ranked list. The contention of the petitioner is that since there occurred illegality, that is capable of cutting the root of the selection process, there is no need to challenge the ranked list and challenge against the shortlist alone would be sufficient. W.P.(C).NO.14302 OF 2007 : 3 : 5. The main grievance of the petitioner is that certain persons whose names figured in Ext.P4 happened to be included in Ext.P5 shortlist. According to the petitioner, Ext.P4 is the list of persons whose applications were rejected. Therefore, according to the petitioner, selection has to be conducted afresh after excluding the persons figured in Ext.P4 for selection to the post of drivers. In fact, a perusal of Ext.P4 would reveal it is not so and it is in fact is the list that contained the names of persons whose applications are defective. 6. According to the first respondent, acting within the powers of the Commission, a chance was given to those persons whose applications were defective to cure the minor defects and, in fact, Ext.P4 list was prepared for that purpose and a time limit was also prescribed for curing the notified defects in their applications. The 3rd respondent's name was also included therein. The contention of the 3rd respondent is that his name happened to be included therein solely on account of a wrong entry in the driving licence issued to him. Instead of describing him as holder of Heavy Passenger Motor Vehicle, it was wrongly endorsed as holder W.P.(C).NO.14302 OF 2007 : 4 : of Heavy Motor Vehicle. This defect was later got cured as is obvious from Ext.R3(d). The first respondent has also explained the said aspect in the additional counter affidavit. It is specifically stated thereunder that in respect of certain persons whose names have been included in Ext.P4 list there occurred only certain minor defects in their respective applications and such applicants had cured such defects within the time granted and consequently, they were considered for selection. It is specifically stated in the additional affidavit filed on 27.2.2008 that out of the 81 candidates whose register numbers were enlisted in Ext.P6, 76 candidates were subsequently included in the ranked list finalised on 14.6.2007 as they had produced proper documents to prove their age, qualification etc. Out of the remaining 5 candidates with register numbers 16735,16915 and 20912 were included provisionally on their mistaken scheduled caste status. On scrutiny of applications they were identified as non- scheduled caste candidates and as they did not score sufficient marks for inclusion in the lists of their respective communities their register numbers were later deleted from the list. The candidate with Register W.P.(C).NO.14302 OF 2007 : 5 : Number 32479 was found unfit in the physical measurement conducted on 24.4.2007 and candidate with Register Number 62195 did not turn up when he was invited for physical measurements on 24.4.2007 at KPSC, Regional Office, Ernakulam and also on 15.5.2007 at KPSC, Thiruvananthapuram, it is further stated in the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent. With respect to the petitioner, it has been specifically stated in the additional counter affidavit that he did not secure in the practical test sufficient marks for getting included in the list for physical measurement. The alleged irregularities in the light of the specific explanations offered by the first respondent in their counter affidavit, additional counter affidavit and additional affidavit cannot be held as irregularities and in fact, the action on the part of the KPSC in allowing the concerned candidates to cure the minor defects cannot be said to be beyond its competence or jurisdiction. The alleged illegality cannot be said to be an illegality that vitiates the selection process especially in the light of the explanation offered by the 1st respondent. W.P.(C).NO.14302 OF 2007 : 6 : This writ petition lacks merit and it is liable to fail. Accordingly, it is dismissed. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. cl