IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 38664 of 2010(G) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- O.K.SHIJU, S/O.GOPALAN, ODINILAMKUNIYIL HOUSE, MUTTUNGAL (P.O), VATAKARA. BY ADVS. SRI.M.C.RATNAKARAN, SMT.M.R.JAYALATHA. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN – 695 001. 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KASARAGOD – 690 001. R1 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, S.C, K.P.S.C, R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. NISHA BOSE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.38664 OF 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner, a participant in the interview conducted by the Public Service Commission for the post of HSA (Mathematics), is aggrieved by the assignment of marks to him. Going by the pleadings in the case, the maximum mark for the interview was 20 and the petitioner is ranked 37 in the rank list. The total marks obtained by the petitioner in the written test is 38 and the Interview Board awarded 8 marks only in the interview. 2. What is alleged in paragraph 3 is that the mark awarded to the petitioner in the interview is the lowest mark awarded by the Interview Board and the Interview Board has awarded marks ranging from 10 to 13 for almost all the candidates. Only a few candidates have been awarded the lowest marks of 8 and 7. It is also stated that even a person who obtained only one mark in the written test has been awarded 11 marks in the interview. Finally, W.P.(C) No.38664/2010 2 it is alleged that the interview conducted was biased, ill- motivated and unjust. 3. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is having a teaching experience of one year in a Government school and eight years in unaided institutions and he is one of the best teachers in the subject in the institutions wherein he worked. 4. A reading of the writ petition and the grounds therein show that apart from making general allegations, the petitioner has not brought out any details to show that the interview was conducted in a malafide manner, and favouritism and self interest was there. When the petitioner alleges favouritism and malafides, he is expected to state the details in the writ petition, which are absent. Apart from that, the persons against whom favouritism and malafides are alleged are not made as parties in the writ petition. As rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC, such generalised statements cannot be accepted on its face value. It is pointed out that the Interview Board consists of experienced and qualified persons and several candidates are W.P.(C) No.38664/2010 3 being interviewed by them also. Evidently, in a matter like this, the scope of a judicial view is very limited. When expert bodies are conducting the interview and when it is ultimately found that the result of the interview is against the petitioner, such allegations are being raised without any justification. Evidently, the present case does not reveal any legal grounds for interference. This writ petition is hence dismissed. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp