IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2011 / 22ND ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 23890 of 2011(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUBHASH T.C,S/O.BHASKCARN, THEVARUCANDIYIL HOUSE, MANASSERY P.O.,MUKKAM VIA KOZHIKODE-673602 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN SRI.HANSON.P.MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SECRETARY KERALA PUBLIC SERCICE COMMISSION, PATTOM,TRIVANDRUM-695001 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECREARY FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES TRIVANDRUM-695001 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.E.M.ABDUL KHADER STANDING COUNSEL SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 23890 of 2011(I) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.4.7.2011 EXT.P2: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.NIL ISSUED BY THE OFFICERS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR APPEARING FOR THE RE-MEASUREMENT OF HEIGHT RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE ab K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P(c)No. 23890 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner applied for selection to the post of Fireman driver-cum-pump Operator in the Fire and Rescue Services Department, pursuant to a notification issued by Public Service Commission. As per Ext.P1, the petitioner was directed to appear for a physical test. The complaint of the petitioner is that, his height was not measured properly by the officers of the Public Service Commission. According to the petitioner, the height of the candidates was being measured using a scale, which according to him was not proper. 2. Consequently, he contends that his real height was not taken into account by the Public Service Commission. Since the minimum height prescribed is 165 cm, he was found to be ineligible because his height on measurement was only 163.5 cm. 3. The petitioner objected to the measurement that was taken by the officers of the Public Service Commission. Therefore, W.P(c)No. 23890 of 2011 2 based on his appeal, the petitioner was admitted for a re- measurement. He appeared for the re-measurement on 24.08.2011. At that time, on remeasurement, it was found that the petitioner's height was 164cm. 4. The petitioner contends that he had earlier appeared before the Public Service Commission for selection as a Driver in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. At the time of selection, it was found that his height was 166 cm and he had successfully qualified in the physical test. Similarly, the petitioner had also appeared for recruitment to Military Service. For the said selection also when his height was measured, it was found that his height was 166 cm. Therefore, he contends that finding him in-eligible in the physical test is absolutely unjustified in law. 5. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit pointing out that the height of the petitioner on initial measurement was found to be 163.5 cm only and it was below the minimum required height. However, when the petitioner complained about the correctness of such measurement, a re-measurement was W.P(c)No. 23890 of 2011 3 conducted on 24.08.2011. At that time, the measurements were taken in the presence of one of the members of the Commission. Thereupon, the petitioner's height was found to be 164 cm. On such re-measurement also, the petitioner was not found to possess the minimum height necessary for the post. The first respondent has denied the assertion of the petitioner that on earlier occasions, his height had been measured as 166 cm during the process of selection to the posts of Driver of Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and to the Military Service. According to the first respondent, the measuring stand used for taking the height of the petitioner was duly certified by the Legal Metrology Department to be accurate and therefore, the contention of the petitioner was unsustainable. 6. I have considered the rival contentions anxiously. 7. The petitioner's height in the initial measurement was 163.5 cms. The petitioner disputed the measurement. Therefore, he was called for a re-measurement and his height was measured again, this time, in the presence of a member of the first respondent commission. Thereupon, his height was found to be W.P(c)No. 23890 of 2011 4 164 cms. Thus, even on re-measurement, the petitioner has been found only to have only 164 cm height which is less than the minimum height prescribed for the post. 8. Though the counsel for the petitioner laid much stress on the discrepancy among the measurements conducted, I do not think that is of much consequence. The difference of 0.5 cm is bound to occur when a measurement is taken carefully. The earlier measurement would have been taken in the course of taking the measurements of the large number of candidates who would have appeared for that day. However, on a careful measurement the petitioner was found to have a height of 164 cms. Nothing is produced before me to show that the said measurement is defective in any manner. Though the petitioner's contention that his height had been measured as 166 cms, no material evidence has been placed before me to support the above case. 9. The petitioner had an opportunity to verify the measurement made by the first respondent's officers on duty and on re-measurement also he has been found not to possess the W.P(c)No. 23890 of 2011 5 minimum height required for selection to the post. In the above circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with the selection or to grant any of the reliefs sought for. This Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE /True copy/ P.A.to judge ln