IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2009 / 9TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 11870 of 2009(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. AJIMON V.T., VELLACKADAYIL HOUSE, KOLERI P.O., VIA-KENICHIRA, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 2. SIJU MON V.J., VELLIKATTIL HOUSE, MEPPADI P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT. 3. MANOJ N., KOTTAKUNNU PUTHIYA VEEDU, P.O.MEENANGADI, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 4. SURESH C.P., CHARANCHIRAYIL HOUSE, MANALVAYAL P.O., PULPALLY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 5. SUBRAMANIAN O., OORAKKATTIL HOUSE, THAZHE ARAPPATTA, MEPPADI POST, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 6. GANESAN C.K., ASRAMAM, MUNDERY, KALPETTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 7. JIJU K.J., KATTATH HOUSE, SASIMALA P.O., PULPALLY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL, MR.N.P.PRAJEESH. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. W.P.(C). NO.11870/2009-C: 2. THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, DISTRICT OFFICE, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, WAYANAD. R1 TO R4 BY MR. ALEXANDER THOMAS,S.C, K.P.S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.11870/2009-C: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE CALL LETTER ISSUED TO THE P.1. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DTD. 27/03/2009. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS DTD. 02/04/2009. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P.(C) No. 11870 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 31st day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard Sri. Thaliyal R. Gopakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.Alexander Thomas, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioners are candidates who applied for appointment to the post of Excise Guard in the Excise Department. They were called to appear for the physical efficiency test held on 10.03.2009. Though the petitioners participated in all the eight items, they could clear only four item. All of them failed to clear 1500 meters race within the stipulated time. They were therefore disqualified. This writ petition was thereupon filed contending that the 1500 meters race was held towards sunset and that as they had been waiting in the venue where the test was conducted without taking any food, they were too tired and exhausted and that as a result thereof, they could not perform to their best. In this writ petition the petitioners seek a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to give them one more opportunity to run the 1500 meters race. 3. The respondent have filed a counter affidavit pointing out that the petitioners did not clear 1500 meters race within the stipulated time W.P.(C) No. 11870/09 2 of 5 minutes and 44 seconds and, therefore, they were disqualified. It is also stated that as per the guidelines governing the holding of the physical efficiency test, no applicant can be permitted to take a retest. It is also stated that the physical efficiency test held on 10.03.2009 was over by 5.30 p.m. 4. The petitioners have not been able to show with reference to any material that the commission has a duty to permit candidates who failed to qualify on a particular day to take the test on another day. They have also not been able to point out any stipulation in the guidelines governing the holding of the physical efficiency test which entitles them to take a retest. In the absence of any such stipulation in the guidelines governing the physical efficiency test, I am of the opinion that the stand taken by the Kerala Public Service Commission cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. The petitioners who did not clear the physical efficiency test cannot be heard to content that they should be permitted to take the test or a part thereof on another date. I therefore hold that there is no merit in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. mn.