IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2008 / 25TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 13156 of 2008(N) PETITIONER: ---------------------- SANTHOSH JOSEPH, S/O.K.O.JOSEPH,KAVIYIL HOUSE, MUTHOLY P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT -686 597. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ SRI.ANOOP JOSEPH SRI.ABHILASH AKBAR SRI.T.B.SIVAPRASAD RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC FOR R1 & 2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.13156 of 2008 N ------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is a visually handicapped person, as evidenced by Ext.P1. He was included in the rank list of candidates for the post of Lower Division Clerks in various departments. He is aggrieved by the ranking given to him. Reference in this regard is made to Ext.P4 circular, in which the norms to be adopted by the Public Service Commission from 2007 onwards are stated. It is now accepted that, the circular which is applicable in the case of selection conducted in 2006, was a circular dated 8.5.1987. Ext.P4 applies only to selections which are held after 23.4.2007. 2. Clause 1 of the circular dated 8.5.1987 reads as follows: “In cases where selection is made on the basis of writ test alone, grace marks to P.H.candidates, subject to a maximum of 12% in the case of blind, deaf and dumb and 10% in the case of the Orthopaedically handicapped of the marks for the Written Test as the case may be, will be given by the Commission at their discretion. For this purpose, an interview of P.H.candidates will be W.P.(C).NO.13156/08 :: 2 :: conducted by the Commission, and the marks awarded by the Commission at the interview will be added to the marks for the Written Test and the Ranked List prepared accordingly. The list of P.H.Candidates eligible for interview will be prepared after notionally adding the maximum eligible marks also to the marks for the Written Test, and if the total marks so arrived at become actual to or above the cut off marks prescribed by the Commission for the preparation of the Ranked List.” 3. The petitioner secured 65 marks in the written test which is the only basis for selection. Apparently, he was awarded 3 marks as grace marks to enable him to become eligible to be short listed. What the petitioner disputes is the action on the part of the Commission in not awarding him the maximum marks that could be awarded by way of grace marks viz., 12% relatable to the percentage of disability that is incurred by a physically handicapped person. In the circumstances, he submits that he must either be given 12% marks, which must be added to the marks he had obtained in the written test or it must be increased by 12% of the marks, which is again relatable to 40% of the disability incurred by W.P.(C).NO.13156/08 :: 3 :: him. In other words, 4.8 rounded to 5, must be added to the marks obtained by the petitioner in the written test. This is disputed by the Commission. 4. Learned counsel for the Commission further submits that the selection was held in 2006 and Ext.P5 rank list was published on 1.1.2006. The petitioner made a complaint only in the writ petition which was instituted on 11.4.2008. There is a delay on the part of the petitioner. 5. I do not find fault with the stand taken by the Commission as such. Since it is clause (1) of the circular dated 8.5.1987 which applies, the discretion that is available to the Commission in determining the marks that has to be awarded to the physically handicapped person cannot be disputed. No doubt, as learned counsel for the petitioner points out, there is better discipline in the manner in which such discretionary marks can be awarded, going by Ext.P4 circular. But, one will have to go by the circular dated 8.5.1987, which was applicable to the selection in question and if that be so, it W.P.(C).NO.13156/08 :: 4 :: cannot be said that the Commission committed an error in not awarding 5 marks to the petitioner, because it is the maximum of 12% that could be allowed to a visually handicapped person. The Commission did award to the petitioner 3 marks. 6. The Commission submits that grace marks have been awarded to the petitioner that is to make him eligible to be short listed and the same quantum of grace marks have been awarded and added to the marks that has been obtained by the petitioner in the written test. The claim made by the petitioner that 5 marks must be added to the marks obtained by him in the written test, for the purpose of determining his place in the rank list is refuted by the Commission. They contend that, as per the circular dated 8.5.1987, there is no obligation on the part of the Commission to necessarily award the maximum marks that is possible in terms of the circular. 7. I do not find any error in the stand taken by the Commission in applying the circular dated 8.5.1987. I am not in a position to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Commission must be asked W.P.(C).NO.13156/08 :: 5 :: to act in accordance with Ext.P4 circular which came into force well after the publication of the rank list. This will result in the Commission reconsidering the ranking in the rank list already published. In fact, the petitioner waited for 2 years to approach this court. Further if the rank list is to be revised, as a result of the petitioner's contention being accepted, many other persons included in the rank list will be detrimentally affected. But they are not parties to this writ petition. For all these reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge