IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2010 / 16TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 21099 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- DR. BIJI.K.B., AGED 37 YEARS W/O. P.V.ANIL KUMAR, CHITHIRA SHARON APARTMENTS OPP: ST. MARYS SCHOOL, P.O.CHERAVARAMBALAM, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HEALTH, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATIONS REPRESENTED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY (MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE) N.A.M.S. BUILDING, ANSARI NAGAR, MAHATMA GANDHI MARG, NEW DELHI. BY SRI. ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, PSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 21099 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T Pursuant to Ext.P1 notification issued by the first respondent for selection to the post of Senior Lecturer in Pathology, the petitioner submitted her application. In the ranked list drawn pursuant to the said selection, the petitioner has been included at rank No.22. Later, the first respondent issued Ext.P2 notice dated 26.3.2010 requiring the petitioner to produce the certificate to prove that she had acquired Diplomate of National Board (DNB) prior to the last date of receipt of the application. The same was issued since in Ext.P3, the provisional certificate of passing Diplomate of National Board, the date of its issuance is shown as 27.9.2010 (sic. 27.1.2010) whilst the last date of receipt of the application was 9.9.2009. In response to Ext.P3, the petitioner has submitted a reply on 7.4.2010 along with Exts.P4 and P5 as its enclosures. Ext.P4 is the Course Certificate dated 31.10.2008 and Ext.P5 is the information down loaded from the Internet, relating to DNB examination. As per Ext.P6 , the petitioner was informed that the said documents are unacceptable and she was required to produce records showing that the date of publication of DNB examination WPC No.21099/2010 2 was prior to the last date of receipt of the applications viz., 9.9.2009. For that purpose the petitioner was given 15 days. Ext.P6 is dated 7.5.2010. Subsequently, the petitioner was also served with Ext.P7 show cause notice dated 14.6.2010. As per the same, the petitioner was informed of the proposal to delete her name from the ranked list and she was also directed to show cause as to why the said proposed action should not be taken against her. The petitioner has shown cause as per Ext.P9 dated 22.6.2010. However, the first respondent issued Ext.P10 dated 1.7.2010 deleting the name of the petitioner from the ranked list dated 18.3.2010 prepared for appointment to the post of Senior Lecturer in Pathology under the Medical Education Department. It is challenging Ext.P10 that this writ petition has been filed. 2. The thrust of the contentions of the petitioner is that the action on the part of the first respondent in deleting her name as per Ext.P10 is illegal for the reason that the issue involved in the matter was not properly considered by the first respondent. According to the petitioner, Ext.P3 the provisional certificate produced by the petitioner would reveal the fact that she had actually passed the DNB WPC No.21099/2010 3 examination held in May 2009. That apart, it is the contention of the petitioner that the respondents should have taken note of Exts.P5(1) and P5(2). According to the petitioner, they would reveal the fact that petitioner has passed the DNB examination prior to 9.9.2009. The further contention is that the date in Ext.P3 is immaterial as the very certificate would reveal the fact that the petitioner has passed the examination held in May, 2009. 3. I have heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the first respondent as well. 4. Ext.P5(1) is the information downloaded on 24.4.2009 regarding DNB Theory and Ext.P5(2) is the downloaded information dated 29.7.2009 relating the DNB Practical. In Ext.P5(1) it has been categorically mentioned as hereunder:- “PROVISIONAL PASS CERTIFICATE WILL BE ISSUED ONLY AFTER ACCEPTANCE OF THE THESIS” In Ext.P5(2) it has been stated thus:- “RESULT (PASS/FAIL) WILL BE DECLARED ONLY AFTER ACCEPTANCE OF THESIS.” 5. According to the petitioner, the said statements in Exts.P5(1) and P5(2) would suggest that the petitioner has actually WPC No.21099/2010 4 passed the DNB examination. The statements in Exts.P5(1) and P5 (2), as extracted actually go against the petitioner. The extract from Ext.P5(2) would reveal that the result viz., passed/failed, would be declared only after acceptance of thesis. Admittedly, the thesis acceptance certificate was issued only on 16.1.2010 viz., much after 9.9.2009, the last date for acceptance of the applications. Hence, the contentions raised by the petitioner based on Exts.P5(1) and P5 (2)cannot be upheld. 6. The next contention of the petitioner was based on Ext.P3 provisional certificate. The relevant portion of Ext.P3 reads thus:- “Certified that Dr. BIJI K.B has been declared PASS in the DNB final examination conducted by the Board in May, 2009 with Roll No. PATH/82/069 in the Discipline of PATHOLOGY.” 7. Ext.P3 is dated 27.1.2010. True, as per Ext.P3 the third respondent certified that the petitioner has actually passed the final examination conducted by the Board in May 2009 with Roll No. PATH/82/069 in the discipline of Pathology. In the light of the aforesaid materials, the petitioner contends that evidently she has passed the examination in May 2009 and therefore the date in Ext.P3 WPC No.21099/2010 5 is immaterial. 8. It is thus evident that the petitioner was not actually issued with the provisional pass certificate as on the dates on which he had downloaded the informations in Exts.P5(1) and P5(2) and the provisional pass certificate was admittedly issued only as per Ext.P3. Ext.P3 is dated 27.1.2010. In fact, the same was issued only after acceptance of the thesis on 16.1.2010, as specifically stated in Ext.P5(2).Therefore, the fact that the DNB final examination was conducted in May, 2009 has no relevance. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that in respect of any examination before declaration of its result nobody could legally claim that he/she came out successful in the concerned examination. Therefore, according to me, it is not the date of the examination that is crucial and what is crucial is the date of declaration of the result of the concerned examination. In this case, it is true that the petitioner has appeared in the final DNB examination that was conducted by the Board in May 2009. But the result of the said examination conducted in May 2009 was declared provisionally only on 27.1.2010. Therefore, I cannot find fault with the finding of the first respondent to WPC No.21099/2010 6 the effect that on the last date of receipt of application i.e., 9.9.2009, there was no declaration of the result of the petitioner in respect of her DNB examination and as such, she was ineligible to apply in response to Ext.P1 notification. The petitioner does not have a case that the result of the DNB examination was declared prior to 27.1.2010, officially. In view of the facts thus obtained in this case, I am of the view that there is no reason to interfere with Ext.P10 and to review Ext.P10 judicially. There is no merit in this writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. C.T.RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE) vps WPC No.21099/2010 7 WPC No.21099/2010 8