IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2008 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 20168 of 2007(A) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------------- 1. P.K.SANTHOSH, AGED 38, S/O.M.KRISHNAN NAIR, ADEEKKALATHU VEEDU, UCHAKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SANAL KUMAR, S/O.VARGHESE NADAR, SANAL MANDIRAM, KANCHAMPAZHINJI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. V.JAYAKUMAR, AGED 40, S/O.VIDYADHARAN, RAJEEV BHAVAN, CHILAMPILKANI, NERUMANKADAVU P.O. MITHRUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. VIJU.N., S/O.NARAYANAVILASOM, VENPAKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. JOY.C., AGE 35, S/O.CHRISTUDAS, JOSHMI BHAVAN, MANNAMKONAM, ANJUTHENGINMOODU, KATTAKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. SAIFUDEEN M., S/O. IDAYIL PUTHENVEEDU, MASJID LANE, VAZHOTTUKONAM, KODUGANOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. SANIKUTTAN.S., S/O.SADASIVAN, SANI NIVAS, KOTTUKALKONAM, KATTACHALKUZHI P.O., BALARAMAPURAM. 8. RAMESAN.S., AGED 49, S/O.SHANMUGHAN, VALIYARATHALA HOUSE, ATHIYANOOR, ARALUMMOODU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 9. SUHOOD.S., AGED 41, S/O.SAINULDEEN, ABU MANZIL, KUNNAMPARA, VATTAPPARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 10. A.V.SUGUNAKUMAR, VISWAMANDIRAM, SHOOLAAMKUDI, POOVAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. Kss ..2/- ....2..... WPC.NO.20168/2007 A 11. K.BALACHANDRAN, AGED 35, S/O.KRISHNAN, KEEZHATHIL KALATHIL VEEDU, ARUMANOOR, POOVAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 12. JENLET RAJ.C., J.S.J.BHAVAN, KAITHAKUZHY, KODANKARA, CHENGAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 13. SARAT.T., AGE 41, S/O.THOMAS, CHARUVILAVEEDU, PERINGAMALA, KALLIYUR P.O. 14. GOPALAKRISHNAN V., AGED 40, KUZHIVILA VEEDU, MUTHANA P.O., PALAYAMKUNNU (VIA). 15. SUDEESANAN.K., AGED 41, S/O.KUTTAN, KUNNILVEEDU, KADAVILA, AETHNAMOODU P.O., ALAMCODE (VIA). 16. SALIM.S., KATTAKALIL, CHULLIMANUR P.O., NEDUMANGADU. 17. SURESH G.L., AGED 36, STELLA MARIS, MAVILAKADAVU, VEHKODE P.O. 18. JOSE J.S., AGED 32, S/O.P.JOHNSON, AROMAL BHAVAN, CHANIVIALA, VATTAVILA POST, AMARAVILA. 19. SURESH BABU N.G., NAYIPADI HOUSE, THAZHATHUR P.O., CHEERAL (VIA), WAYANAD. BY ADV.SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN (SR.) BY ADV. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR SMT.LAKSHMI RENJITH SRI.JOJO VARGHESE Kss ..3/- ...3...... WPC.NO.20168/2007 A RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, OF -DO- -DO- 3. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, OF DO. DO. 4. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, WAYANAD. 5. THE CHAIRMAN AND M.D., KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SRI. ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, KPSC – R1 TO R4 BYSRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C. - R.5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.20168/2007 A APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE RANK LIST PUBLISHED IN THE P.S.C.BULLETIN DTD. 15/06/07. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPORT IN THE JANAYUGOM DAILY DTD.3/06/07. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 24/04/07 IN KERALA KAUMUDI DAILY. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 22/04/07 IN MALAYALA MANORAMA. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REPORT IN THOZHIL VARTHA DTD. 5/05/07. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET WITH REGISTER NO.17816. EXT.P7: PERFORMANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ATO POOVAR. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET WITH REGISTER NO.17615. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE PERFORMANCE CERTIFICATE FROM THE A.T.O., POOVAR DTD. 20/07/06. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET WITH REGISTER NO.13502. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE PERFORMANCE CERTIFICATE. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET WITH REGISTER NO.2116. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE BADGE NO.19/931/94 DTD. 30/11/94 OF A.L.A.NEYYATTINKARA. EXT.P14: COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET WITH REGISTER NO.13872. EXT.P15: EFFICIENT DRIVING CERTIFICATE OF THE PETROLEUM CONSERVATION RESEARCH ASSOCIATION. EXT.P16: COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET WITH REGISTER NO.17170. EXT.P17: OCPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD. 24/01/05 OF A.T.O.,PEROORKADA. EXT.P18: COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET WITH REGISTER NO.17629. EXT.P19: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD. 24/05/05 ISSUED BY THE PETROLEUM CONSERVATION RESEARCH ASSOCIATION. EXT.P20: COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET OF THE PETITIONER NO.8 TO 19. EXT.P21: COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER. EXT.P22: COPY OF THE MALAYALA MANORAMA, THOZHIL VEETHI, WEEKLY DTD. 10/11/07. /TRUE COPY/ Kss P.S.TO JUDGE K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 20168 OF 2007 A -------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th June, 2008 JUDGMENT Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as follows: Petitioners were short listed for the post of Reserve Driver in the KSRTC. Ext.P1 is the rank list. Exts.P2 to P5 are publications in various Newspapers relied upon to show that there are allegations raised that many who found their entry in the rank list were through the back door and some of them were alleged to have obtained their driving licence through unfair means. Petitioners 1 to 7 are empanelled Drivers for a long time, while petitioners 8 to 19 are not empanelled Drivers. According to petitioners 8 to 19, though they were not empanelled drivers, they are having sufficient experience. They seek to set aside Ext.P1 rank list and further seek a direction to the respondents to conduct the practical driving test in an impartial and fair manner in accordance with law. 2. A Counter Affidavit is filed to which no reply WPC. 20168/07 A 2 affidavit is filed. I heard Shri O.V. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and also Shri Alexander Thomas, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Public Service Commission. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners would submit that the exclusion of the petitioners is totally arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is their case that petitioners were working as Drivers for a long time and they have sufficient experience and to exclude and eliminate them in the practical test reveals arbitrariness. According to senior counsel, the decision taken is one which is perverse and it could not have been arrived at. He also points out the information which the first petitioner received on the application under the Right to Information Act which is produced as Ext.P21. It is pointed out that a perusal of Ext.P21 would show that the persons who were selected had to be given further training. It is also pointed out with reference to Ext.P21 that it shows that as many as twentytwo persons selected could not be WPC. 20168/07 A 3 sent to the Units as they could not achieve performance with good standard. He relies on Ext.P9 Certificate issued by the KSRTC to indicate that performance was very satisfactory. It is submitted that there is political interference and the matter was decided on extraneous considerations. He submits that when the matter is shocking to the conscience of the Court, it is a fit case where in judicial review, this Court can interfere. 4. In the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 4, it is, inter alia, stated as follows: " 5. It is submitted that the petitioners have participated in the practical test conducted by the Commission. In the practical test the performance of all the candidates including the petitioners were assessed by a duly constituted board consisting of Joint Regional Transport Officer, Senior Officer of K.S.R.T.C. and an Officer nominated by the Commission in the category of Under Secretary. It is submitted that the practical test was conducted on 06/03/2007 onwards for various candidates including the petitioners. 6. In the practical test 12 factors were taken WPC. 20168/07 A 4 into account to assess the suitability of the candidates. As the performance of the petitioners were poor and on that reason their names were not considered for further selection. 7. The contention of the petitioners that the Examination Board who conducted the practical test are insufficient and retired person from the Transport Department and none of the Judges happened to be drivers is absolutely incorrect and baseless. The Board so constituted consisting of well experienced Officers who has got technical know how in the matter and since the petitioners have not specifically stated about any of the said Officers who are not qualified as contended by them, the contentions of the petitioners is too vague and the same are only made out for filing the Writ Petition without any iota of truth or bona fides." He also relied upon a Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W. A. No.770/02 and it is contended that the case of the petitioners is only to be rejected. 5. I feel that the case at hand cannot receive a different WPC. 20168/07 A 5 treatment than that has been meted out to the petitioners who failed in W.A. No.772/02. Therein also, in fact, I find that the complaint of the petitioners was that they had been working as Drivers for a long time and they could not be failed in the practical test. It is found that the direction given by the learned Single Judge in favour of the petitioners therein came to be vacated. There is no reply affidavit filed to the Counter Affidavit. Going by the allegations in the Counter Affidavit, the performance of the petitioners in the practical test was found poor. Learned standing counsel for the respondent Commission would point out that it is not clear from Ext.P21 as to whether the said information relates to the selection, which is the subject matter of this Writ Petition. Even proceeding on the basis that it relates to the selection in question, I am of the view that the fact that some persons had to be sent for further training or that twentytwo persons did not achieve the standard will not advance the case of the petitioners. The performance of the petitioners, going by the evaluation made by the Committee would not WPC. 20168/07 A 6 entitle the petitioners for selection in their own right. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioners' case is covered by the Division Bench decision and I follow the same and dismiss the Writ Petition. K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk.