IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2008 / 3RD SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 5910 of 2008(C) PETITIONER: --------------------- JAGANNATH.P.M.,S/O.P.V.MOHAHAN AGED 25 YEARS,PANAKKAL HOUSE, MANATHALA P.O.CHAVAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT SRI.RANJIT BABU RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THRISSUR DISTRICT OFFICE,\ REP. BY SECRETARY (DISTRICT OFFICER) M.G.ROAD,THRISSUR 680 004. 2. THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY,KERALA KALARIPPAYATTU ASSOCIATION SPORTS COUNCIL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.5910 of 2008 C ------------------------- Dated this the 25nd day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner applied for the post of Junior Health Inspector Grade II, pursuant to the notification issued by the Public Service Commission. He claimed that he had participated in the State Championship of State Kalarippayat Championship Competition of 2000-01, representing Thrissur District and has secured First place in the Northern Style in the Junior Category. It is common case that 10% of the marks will be given as weightage to the individual First prize winners of State Championship and 5% of marks who represent a District in the State level Championship of various competitions including Kalarippayat, as per the norms contained in G.O. (MS)No.21/78/GAD dated 11.1.1978. The petitioner was asked to produce the certificate and therefore, he produced Ext.P2, which reads as follows: “This is to certify that Sri.JAGANNATHAN P.M. representing Vallabhatta Kalari, Erattappuzha, Thrissur won the Individual First W.P.(C).NO.5910 of 2008 :: 2 :: place in the Northern Style State Kalarippayat Championship Competitions of 2000-2001 in the Junior Category.” 2. The Public Service Commission took the stand that the petitioner has represented a club and not the District and therefore, he is not entitled to any weightage marks. This is the purport of Ext.P3. The petitioner challenged the stand taken by the Commission in W.P.(C)No. 31224/07. In the meanwhile, the petitioner applied for a fresh certificate and he was issued Ext.P4 certificate by the Kerala Kalaripayat Association Sports Council, which states that he was won Individual First place in the Competition held on 25.3.2001 representing Thrissur District. By Ext.P5 judgment, this court directed the Commission to take a decision after hearing the petitioner. The operative portion of Ext.P5 judgment reads as follows: “After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel and on going through Exts.P3 and P5, I am of the view that the petitioner should be heard before a decision is taken by the PSC. In the result, the petitioner may produce a copy of the judgment W.P.(C).NO.5910 of 2008 :: 3 :: along with a fresh representation indicating these aspects, and any further clarification obtained from any other authentic source, before the concerned authority. PSC shall hear the petitioner and the needful shall be done within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the representation.” 3. The petitioner was heard and the Commission passed Ext.P7 order, rejecting the petitioner's claim, essentially on the premise that Ext.P2 certificate shows that the petitioner had represented a club and that Ext.P4 clarification produced, after the publication of the rank list, cannot be considered. This has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed, wherein, apart from supporting Ext.P7, the Commission has also stated that, as per the Government Order dated 11.1.1978, extra marks for sports can be awarded only to those persons representing the Districts (not club) in the State Championships. As the petitioner had not represented any District, as claimed by him, he W.P.(C).NO.5910 of 2008 :: 4 :: has not been awarded weightage marks for sports. The Commission further says that they do not look into a document produced subsequent to the publication of the rank list. 5. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Rajit and learned standing counsel for the PSC Sri.Alexander Thomas. 6. The crucial issue is whether the petitioner had actually represented the Thrissur District. Ext.P2 is the certificate issued contemporaneously. On the face of it, it shows that the petitioner had represented an organisation, Vallabhatta Kalari, Erattappuzha, Thrissur. No doubt, he has won the first place in the junior category. But the certificate, Ext.P2, by itself does not show that the petitioner had represented Thrissur District. Ext.P4 purports to clarify this. But, I find it difficult to accept Ext.P4 essentially for the reason that the same was issued 6 years after the Championship. Ext.P4 would have been sufficient, had there been any certificate to show that the petitioner had actually represented Thrissur District. W.P.(C).NO.5910 of 2008 :: 5 :: 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, what was held in 2001, as evidenced by Ext.P2, is a State Championship and any person, who participates in the championship will, necessarily, have to represent a District. The name of the club is shown only to identify the representative status of the petitioner. I do not find any material to clearly show that the person, who participated in the State Championship, from whichever club he has come, will necessarily have to represent a District and not otherwise; nor do I find any reason that all persons who participated in the Championship held in 2001 were representing one District or the other, irrespective of the Club they represented. It is not possible for me to ignore the words in Ext.P2 which, in clear terms, certifies that “Jagannathan P.M. (the petitioner) represents Vallabhatta Kalari, Erattappuzha, Thrissur”. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in Ext.P7 communication, the Commission does not state that they do not accept Ext.P4 as such, nor do they have a case in Ext.P7 that the petitioner had not represented Thrissur W.P.(C).NO.5910 of 2008 :: 6 :: District, but had only represented the club. It is true. But when a challenge was mounted against Ext.P7, a counter affidavit, was filed by the Board. It clearly outlines the stand taken by the Public Service Commission. At any rate, it would be improper, as it were, to ignore the specific wording in Ext.P2, the crucial question is whether the petitioner had actually represented Thrissur District. After all, weightage marks are given only when a candidate represents a District and not otherwise. For all these reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge