IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2008 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 34965 of 2008(S) -------------------------- OA.226/2008 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER/ APPLICANT IN O.A: ------------------- P.P.BADARUDEEN, S/O.M.C.EBRAHIM, AGED 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT PATHUMAPURAM, KADAMAT ISLAND, U.T.OF LAKSHWADEEP. BY ADV. SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN O.A.: --------------- 1. THE ADMINISTRATOR, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PORT, SHIPPING & AVIATION, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI-682 555. 3. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, U.T.OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI. 4. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, U.T.OF LAKSHADWEEP, (CHAIRMAN OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE), KADAMAT ISLAND. 5. ABDUL MUTHALIF, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.K.P.BASHA, POOVAMMADA HOUSE, KAVARATHI, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP. (IMPLEADED AS ADDL.RESPONDENT NO.5 IN O.A.) 6. THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM, BENCH REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SC,LAKSHADWEEP ADMN FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 34965 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner was the applicant in O.A.No.226/2008. The respondents herein were the respondents in that O.A. 2. The petitioner was a candidate for selection to the post of Boat Lasckar under the respondents. Swimming test was one of the tests for selection to that post. He got qualified in the preliminary round. The final test was held in 15 batches in which the participants were selected on the basis of toss of the coin. The first 10 batches contained three candidates each and the remaining 5 batches included four candidates each. In the final test, the writ petitioner/applicant participated along with two others in the 4th batch. According to the applicant, when he was going to reach the target, one of the rival candidates pulled his leg and therefore he could not clear the test. So, the applicant claims, the swimming test for his batch W.P.(C) No.34965/2008 2 should be held again. The petitioner preferred Annexures A14 and A15 representations which are produced along with Ext.P1 Original Application. Since the applicant raised his objection, the department concerned called for a report from the police personnel, who were present there. It appears, the police personnel reported that nothing, as alleged by the applicant, took place. Apparently, relying on the said report, the authorities declined the relief sought by the petitioner. The Tribunal also relied on the said material to non-suit the applicant and the Original Application was dismissed by Ext.P6. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P6. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the Tribunal has arrived at the finding that the police authorities have reported against the petitioner without any material on record. May be, based on some oral submissions, this observation was made by the Tribunal, it is submitted. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the entire files relating to the selection were produced before the C.A.T. The Tribunal perused the same and it contained the W.P.(C) No.34965/2008 3 communication received from police that they did not notice any irregularity, as alleged by the applicant. Every candidate who failed in a physical efficiency test would love to have a second test. For that, he will blame everyone and anything. Based on the materials before the Tribunal, it has taken a view which cannot be described as perverse or based on no materials. Therefore, we are not impressed by the self serving assertions of the defeated candidate to unsettle the result of the test, so that, he may get a second chance. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) ps