IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2011 / 4TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 20761 of 2011(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. SANIL KUMAR P.K., S/O.KARUNAKARAN P.V., PULLUKATTU HOUSE, UDAYAMPEROOR P.O., ERNAKULAM. (* DELETED) 2. N.V.LALAN, S/O.VASU, KUNNATHU VILAKATHIL HOUSE, PANANGADU P.O., ERNAKULAM. *1ST PETITIONER IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER IN I.A. NO. 12776/2011 DATED 26/08/2011. BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED SRI. M. ABDUL RASHEED RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE CHIEF EXAMINER, KERALA PORT DEPARTMENT, NEENDAKARA, KOLLAM-691001. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2011, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 21212 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 20761 of 2011(U) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE RENEWED LICENCE ISSUED BY THE KERALA PORT DEPARTMENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER AS BOAT LASCAR DATED 26.9.2001. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER AS BOAT LASCAR DATED 11.1.2010. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER WORKING AS BOAT LASCAR DATED 25.11.1998. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE LICENCE AS BOAT SERANG ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 12.7.2009. EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION GR VIII (2) 43837/05/GW DATED 29.6.2011 ISSUED TO 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION GR VIII (2) 43837/05/GW DATED 29.6.2011 ISSUED TO 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P8 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 26.07.2011 SENT BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P9 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 26.07.2011 SENT BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)Nos.20761 & 21212 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are unsuccessful candidates in the selection conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission for appointment to the post of Boat Syrang pursuant to the notification dated 28.9.2007. They filed these writ petitions alleging irregularity in the selection process and challenging it on various grounds. Therefore, these writ petitions are heard jointly and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The Kerala Public Service Commission issued a notification on 28.9.2007, for appointment to the post of Boat Syrang. 433 persons, including the petitioners, responded to the said notification and out of which 149 candidates including the petitioners were admitted, provisionally, after the scrutiny of the applications. The Commission decided to finalise the selection by conducting practical test followed by an interview. A board consisting of an officer in the rank of Joint Secretary of the Kerala Public Service Commission as its Chairman and a Port Officer and Mechanical Marine Engineer from the Port Department as its members was constituted for WPC.No.20761 & 21212 of 2011 : 2 : conducting skill test/practical test. Thereupon, all the 149 candidates including the petitioners herein were called for practical test and the same was conducted at Ernakulam Boat Jetty from 18.7.2011 to 23.7.2011. The practical test was conducted to assess the skill of the candidates in driving the boat. Though 121 candidates including the petitioners participated in the practical test only 109 candidates could pass the test. 12 candidates including the petitioners failed to pass the practical test and 28 candidates did not participate in the test. On being aggrieved by their non-selection the petitioners are challenging the very selection process. 3. According to the petitioners they got long years of experience as Boat Driver/Syrang/Lascar under the Kerala Water Transport Department itself as they put in service on daily wage basis in such capacities for several years. It is their contention that they had performed rather well in the practical test and their non-selection is the outcome to defeat them and the intention to favour certain persons of their choice. The details, such as, who are the persons who nursed such intentions, as alleged, and who are the favoured persons have not formed part of the pleadings and naturally, they are not made parties to this writ petition. In this context it is to be WPC.No.20761 & 21212 of 2011 : 3 : noted that the petitioners did not refute the contentions in the counter affidavit that the practical test to assess the driving skill was conducted by the Board. That apart, a scanning of the contentions raised in these writ petitions would reveal that it is only a feeble attempt and no firm factual foundation had been laid to challenge the selection proceedings on the ground of malafides. It is a settled position that no selection process can be permitted to be called in question raising vague allegation of malafides. In the circumstances, the challenge against the selection process on the ground of malafides is only to be repelled. 4. The other allegation of the petitioners is that the respondents have conducted the practical test without adopting a uniform standard from a single place. A counter affidavit has been filed in W.P(C) No. 20761/2011 on behalf of the first respondent. It is contented therein that the test was conducted as per instructions given by the Board which includes experts in the field and that test was conducted in a uniform manner and no discrimination was shown to any candidates including the petitioners. The petitioners' names were not included in the list only because they had failed in the practical test. The contention of the petitioners is that WPC.No.20761 & 21212 of 2011 : 4 : they have gathered experience as Boat Driver/Syrang/Lacar by working on provisional basis and therefore, there was no reason for declaring them as failed in the said practical test. The possession of a prescribed qualification and experience cannot be considered as a reason for getting included in a list prepared after a practical test conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission and only those persons who actually succeeded in the practical test could aspire a place in the list and they alone would earn eligibility to partake in the interview. As a matter of fact the interview of the successful candidates in the practical test was conducted from 27.7.2011 to 29.7.2011. The former writ petition came up for admission on 29.7.2011 and the latter writ petition was, in fact, filed only on 3.8.2011. Except the assertion on the part of the petitioners that the respondents have not followed a uniform method or standard in the selection process no relevant material has been produced to substantiate the said contention. 5. In the absence of any materials to prove that the selection process was infected with unfair practices that vitiated the selection process, this court cannot interfere with a selection process conducted by the PSC. The learned WPC.No.20761 & 21212 of 2011 : 5 : counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the petitioners are on the verge of crossing the upper age limit for participating in a selection process conducted by PSC, the grievance of the petitioners call for a sympathetic consideration. I am of the view that such a contention cannot have an impact on a selection conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission. The question is whether the petitioners have succeeded in the practical test conducted by the PSC as part of the selection process against the notified post and earn eligibility to partake in the interview. When it is evident that the petitioners had failed in the practical test conducted by the PSC the petitioners cannot be heard to raise any grievance against the steps taken to conduct the interview with successful candidates. For all these reasons I do not find no reason to interfere with the selection process in question and there is no merit in these writ petitions. Accordingly they are dismissed. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge