IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2010 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 5204 of 2010(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SREE KUMARY.T, AMBIKAVILASAM, ODAL PURAYIDAM, KARUMKULAM, PUTHIYA THURA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS SRI.S.SHAJI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTAM PALACE.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC FOR R1 GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH -R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 5204 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The first respondent issued a notification, in the Gazette dated 14.2.2008, for appointment to the post of Supervisor (ICDS) in the Social Welfare department. Pursuant to the said notification, the petitioner submitted an application. In fact, she submitted two applications. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the short list published by the Public Service Commission, after conducting the O.M.R. test, her name was not included. According to the petitioner, more number of candidates should have been included in the short list published by the Public Service Commission taking into account the existing and future vacancies. 2. An affidavit has been filed by the first respondent. It is stated therein that pursuant to the said notification, 9579 applications were received, O.M.R. test was conducted on 20.11.2008 and a probability list was published on 8.12.2009. It is specifically stated therein that the non- inclusion of the petitioner's name in the probability list was not on W.P.(C) NO. 5204/2010 2 account of the factum of her having submitted two applications. In fact, no candidate was excluded from the probability list on that ground. It is further stated in the affidavit that a cut off mark was fixed for preparing the probability list and thereafter the number of candidates to be included in the probability list/short list was decided, taking into account the Full Bench decision of this Court in Ravidas v. Public Service Commission, 2009(2)K.L.T. 295. The total number of advise made from the previous rank list was 180 and the vacancies reported prior to the present probability list was 147. Accordingly, the Scheduled Caste supplementary list in which the petitioner seeks inclusion was prepared by including 72 candidates. The said figure was arrived at in the following manner: “180 x 8/100 x 5 = 72” According to the first respondent, the said figure was arrived at strictly adhering to the principles laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Ravidas v. Public Service Commission, 2009(2) K.L.T. 295. It is specifically stated therein that acquisition of experience cannot be the sole factor for inclusion in the probability list. The marks of the last rank holder in the main list of the probability list is 35 and that of the Scheduled Caste supplementary list is 30. The petitioner had obtained only 19 marks. In view of the facts thus obtained in this case, the petitioner cannot successfully challenge the action on the part of the Public Service W.P.(C) NO. 5204/2010 3 Commission in not including her name in the short list. There is no merit in this Writ Petition and it is accordingly dismissed. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) sp/ W.P.(C) NO. 5204/2010 4 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C) NO. 5204/2010 JUDGMENT 18th March, 2010 W.P.(C) NO. 5204/2010 5