IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2010 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 32852 of 2009(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- M.RAMACHANDRAN, THIRD GRADE OVERSEER, P.W.D.BUILDINGS SECTION, THRISSUR. BY ADVS. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.MATHEW SUNNY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (K.P.S.C.IN SHORT), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.S.C.OFFICE, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, P.S.C.OFFICE, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI. ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, KPSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 32852 of 2009(B) -2- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN MATHRUBHOOMI THOZHIL VARTHA DATED 24-11-2007. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE SHORT LIST PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS PER NOTIFICATION NO. 77/2009/ERVIA DATED 29-10-2009. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE SHORT LIST PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS PER NOTIFICATION NO. 76/2009/ERVIA DATED 29-10-2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.32852/2009-B ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the non inclusion of the petitioner in the shortlist published for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the P.W.D as well as in the Irrigation Department. The petitioner participated in the written test. Ext.P2 is the shortlist published in respect of the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil)(by-transfer) in Irrigation wherein it is mentioned that the candidates who have secured 35 marks and above are included in the shortlist. Ext.P3 is the shortlist containing the register numbers of candidates who have been found provisionally eligible to be called for interview for selection to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil)(by- transfer) in PWD wherein it is mentioned that the candidates who have secured 43 marks and above are included in the shortlist. It is pointed out that it is a common test and, therefore, two different yardsticks ought not have been adopted. W.P.(C). No.32852/2009 -:2:- 2. The Commission has filed a counter affidavit. It is explained as follows in paragraph (3):- “It is submitted that the Commission decided to prepare a shortlist by including 20 candidates who have secured top marks in the OMR test in the case of Assistant Engineer (Civil) PWD by-transfer (Category No.399/07), and regarding Assistant Engineer (Civil) in Irrigation Department by-transfer (Category No.400/07) the Commission's decision was to include 35 candidates who had secured top marks in the OMR test. Hence as decided by the Commission, 20 candidates were included in the shortlist for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) by-transfer in PWD and the marks secured by the last candidate included in the shortlist was 43. The lowest mark among the 36 candidates included in the shortlist for Assistant Engineer (Civil) by- transfer in Irrigation Department was 35. (The last four candidates secured the same mark).” W.P.(C). No.32852/2009 -:3:- 3. It is further explained that the number of candidates to be included in each category was decided by the Commission based on the number of vacancies reported, anticipated no. vacancies etc.. In such a situation, it is quite natural that the marks obtained by the last candidates included in the shortlists will be different. The Commission have never fixed a cut off mark as alleged by the petitioner. The Commission has only fixed the size of the shortlist and in that process all the candidates who have secured the same marks as the last of the candidate falling within that group were also included in the shortlist. 4. In paragraph (5) it is explained that the Commission's order was to include 20 candidates in the shortlist for PWD (by-transfer) from the candidates securing top marks in the OMR test. Similarly the Commission had ordered to include 35 candidates with top marks in the OMR test in the shortlist for by- transfer in Irrigation Department. 5. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Full Bench in Ravidas v. Public Service Commission [2009 (2) KLT 295 (F.B)]. The Full Bench in that decision was of the view that in the absence of any provision under the Rules or under the Statute, the Commission is not W.P.(C). No.32852/2009 -:4:- empowered to fix any cut off marks. But the method adopted by the Commission therein to fix the number of vacancies and adopt a yardstick whereby the marks obtained by the last candidate to be included, was fixed as the bench mark, was accepted by the Full Bench also. Evidently, going by the pleadings, the same method was adopted by the PSC and it cannot be said to be illegal and, hence the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms