IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2010 / 15TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19802 of 2010(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.SURESH, S/O.C.KELAPPAN, AGED 40 YEARS, KEEZHARIYUR HOUSE, CHOOLUR PO VIA NIT, KOZHIKODE - 673 601. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN SRI.HANSON.P.MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE - 673 601. 2. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 0 4. MR.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC FOR PSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.19802 of 2010 (A) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 6th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T In response to a notification issued by the Public Service Commission for appointment to the post of Driver Grade-II, the petitioner submitted his application. He passed in the written test, but failed in the practical test. In this writ petition, the petitioner submits that the vehicle, which was made available for the practical test, was a mechanically defective one and that it was therefore that he failed in the test. On this basis, the prayer sought in the writ petition is to direct the respondents to conduct a re-test using a mechanically fit vehicle. 2. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents has obtained instructions in the matter. He submits that the vehicle in question, namely, ARMADA Jeep, was allotted by the District Collector, Kozhikkode. It is stated that some of the candidates raised objection regarding the mechanical fitness of the vehicle and that thereupon the vehicle was got inspected by the Motor Vehicle WP(C) No.19802/2010 -2- Inspector, who was also a member of the Board, which conducted the test, and he had certified the fitness of the vehicle. It is stated that the same vehicle was used on all the 7 days of test and that out of 407 candidates, who participated in the test, 238 have passed the test. 3. From the above, firstly it can be seen that when complaints were raised by some of the candidates regarding the fitness of the vehicle, the fitness of the vehicle was got certified by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, an Officer who is competent for the same. Secondly, out of the 407 candidates participated in the practical test, 238 have passed the test. This certainly shows that the vehicle was a fit one and that the candidates, who were competent, have passed the test. Necessarily inference is that the failure of the petitioner in the practical test could not have been attributed to the mechanical defect of the vehicle made available by the District Collector and used by the candidates. Therefore, I see no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg