IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2009 / 19TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 11954 of 2009(L) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. SAVITHA.B.,W/O.K.RAJAGOPALA, AGED 28 YEARS,R/AT BANK ROAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. VIJAYA.K.,D/O.K.SANKAPPA MOOLYA, AGED 28 YEARS,R/AT KALATHUR HOUSE, ICHILAMPADY P.O.,KUMBALA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.KODOTH SREEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY, DEPT.OF EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT OFFICE, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE,KASARAGOD. 3. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REP.BY THE SECRETARY, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADDL. R4 IS IMPLEADED 4. SOUMIA.M., S/O. NARAYANA MANIYANI, DELAMPADY, MULLERIA P.O., KASARAGOD DIST. ADDL. R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 15.4.09 IN IA. 5199/09. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.B.RAMANI R2 & R3 ADV. MR.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC R4 BY MR .AJEESH S.BRITE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.11954/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE INTERVIEW CARDS DTD. 16.10.08 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P1(a):- COPY OF THE INTERVIEW CARDS DTD. 16.10.08 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P2:- COPY OF THE SELECT LIST DTD. 7.3.09 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DTD. 31.10.07 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PSC DTD. 31.0.08. P5:- COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DTD. 13.10.06 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P6:- COPY OF THE SELECT LIST DTD. 16.2.09 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P7:- COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET DTD. 9.2.08 ISSUED B THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P8:- COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET DTD. 7.4.06 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.11954 of 2009-L - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT The short question that arises in this writ petition is whether the mode adopted by the Public Service Commission to make the selection of candidates for appointment as H.S.A. Kannada, by conducting interview alone, is permissible. 2. The petitioners were applicants for the above said post in Kasaragod District. Ext.P2 is the rank list published on 7.3.2009. The interviews were conducted on 30.10.2008, 31.10.2008 and 1.11.2008. 3. It is mainly contended that in the previous selection for the post of H.S.A. in the same district in 1997, a written test was conducted. For the post of H.S.A. Urdu also, a written test was conducted in the year 2009. It is therefore contended that the method adopted by the Commission is totally arbitrary. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the Commission, it is explained that there were 136 applications, out of which 103 applications were admitted under direct recruitment. The basis of selection was percentage of academic marks secured in the graduation plus interview marks out of wpc 11954/2009 2 twenty. A total number of 95 candidates were included in the ranked list. Ten vacancies have been reported for the post, against which 9 candidates were advised on 7.4.2009. One vacancy has been set apart for NCA notification. It is pointed out that para 9 of the General Conditions of the notification justifies the action taken by the Commission, in that when the number of candidates is negligibly low, the Commission can finalise the selection on the basis of interview and the academic marks of the candidates. 5. One of the contentions raised by the petitioners is that there is discrimination in making the selection, in the sense that candidates who obtained higher marks in B.Ed. from States outside Kerala rank higher in the select list than those of the dominant Kannada knowing candidates who obtained B.Ed. degree from the State of Kerala. The Commission has explained that it was the marks obtained for B.A. that was considered for selection and not that of B.Ed. It is also pointed out that in the light of Part I Rule 3 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, the Commission may conduct all or one of the methods prescribed, viz. written test, interview, practical test, etc. Reliance is also placed on the decision of a Division Bench of this court in Sajan N.Menon v. State of Kerala (2007 (4) KLT 126). Identical questions have been examined by another Division wpc 11954/2009 3 Bench in Mohan v. Public Service Commission (1994 (2) KLT 585) which stands approved in Sajan N. Menon's case (2007 (4) KLT 126). After analysing the legal position, the Division Bench held thus: “Written test is only a method of selection, primarily intended to provide a common platform to ensure equality between the candidates. But it cannot be said that it is the only sure and safe method to find out the best of the lot. Independent of that or added to that any other method which would still help the appointing authority or even the Entrance Examiner for admission to professional colleges, to find out the best should be welcomed, provided the method is fair and reasonable. Marks obtained by candidates in the qualifying examinations cannot be said to be not a yardstick to measure merit, even if the candidates qualify themselves in various examinations conducted by different educational institutions, of course the inequality between the qualifying examinations should be reduced by adopting a system of equalisation of marks through normalisation process. To ignore the marks obtained by a candidate in the qualifying examination as a whole may be suicidal, after all, students take a qualifying examination after undergoing a system of education which develops their overall personality. If we ignore the qualifying examination completely that would affect the very standard of education in the State because the students would be concentrating more on the Entrance Examination rather than the qualifying examination.” wpc 11954/2009 4 When the Commission is empowered under Rules, to conduct written test or interview for selection of candidates, it cannot be said that the selection conducted based on the marks obtained in the examination and interview, is in any way arbitrary and discriminatory. The petitioners have not succeeded in establishing any violation of rules or any other evidence to show that the selection conducted is not fair. In the absence of any such material, it cannot be said that the Commission had acted illegally. They have been empowered under the rules to adopt the particular mode of selection and herein, in view of the total number of candidates applied for the post, the Commission thought it fit to conduct the selection only by the method of interview and based on the marks obtained in the qualifying examination. Therefore, the writ petition does not deserve any merit and the same is dismissed. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/