IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2009 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 34141 of 2008(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SRI.LALJITH KUMAR. V, ANANDA MANDIRAM , KANDALLOOR P.O. KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. MR.JOHN K.GEORGE. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- KERALA STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY MR. ALEXANDER THOMAS, S.C, P.S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P.(C) No. 34141 of 2008 M =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 18th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a candidate included in Ext.P3 short list for the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher (Political Science). Ext.P3 short list was published on 11-1-2007. The petitioner's grievance is that adequate number of candidates has not been included in the short list and this has happened as a result of the Kerala Public Service Commission fixing 50% marks as cut off marks. The petitioner submits that after Ext.P3 short list, a ranked list was also prepared and all the candidates included in the main list were appointed. The petitioner states that 25 vacancies still remain unfilled and therefore, the preparation of the short list and the ranked list are not in order. 2. The issue raised in this writ petition is, in my opinion, covered against the petitioner by the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Ravidas V. Public Service Commission (2009(2) KLT 295) wherein it was held that the Commission cannot prescribe cut off marks, unless it is prescribed in the rules governing the selection to the post or published in the notification inviting applications. It was also held that the statement in the short list that candidates who have obtained a particular mark and above have been included in the main list of the short list, is not fixation W.P.(C) No. 34141/08 2 of cut off marks but, only reflects the marks secured by the last candidate included in the main list of the short list which is indicated in the shortlist so as to ensure transparency and dissemination of information. Therefore, the mere statement in Ext.P3 that candidates who have secured 50 marks and above are included in the main list of the short list does not by itself lead to the conclusion that the Commission had prescribed cut off marks to shortlist candidates. The method of preparation of the short list has been discussed in detail by this Court in Ravidas V. Public Service Commission (Supra) and it was held that a short list containing two to three times the number of anticipated vacancies cannot be said to be deficient. In the light of the authoritative pronouncement of this Court in Ravidas V. Public Service Commission (Supra), the reliefs sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. This writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. mn.