IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2010 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34451 of 2008(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- ASHRAF M.K., S/O.KOCHAMMU, MADATHICHIRAYIL, NADAVATH NAGAR P.O., ALAPPUZHA - 688 559. BY ADV. SMT.K.V.RESHMI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA, REP. BY ITS DISTRICT OFFICER. 2. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, KPSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 34451 of 2008(E) -2- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 4-7-2008. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 16-7-2008 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, KPSC, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 12.8.2008 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 3-9-2008 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS APPELLATE AUTHORITY. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30-9-2008 ISSUED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY KPSC. EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE FRONT PAGE OF THE SSLC BOOK. EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE, SHOWING THAT HE PASSED CLASS TEN. EXT.P8 : COPY OF THE COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE. EXT.P9 : COPY OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATE. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.34451 Of 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner herein was an applicant for the post of Last Grade Servant in Alappuzha District. He is a physically disabled person having 50% permanent disability. He was directed to appear for an interview on 16.7.2008, as per Exhibit P1. When he appeared for interview, according to him, the documents were verified, but he was not allowed to participate in the interview. Accordingly, he filed a petition dated 16.7.2008 before the State Public Information Officer as per Exhibit P2. Exhibit P3 is the reply given to him. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal as per Exhibit P4, which was replied by Exhibit P5 by a single lined order stating that the 1st respondent had considered the matter in detail and the details have been furnished in the reply. According to the petitioner, he had complied with all the instructions to produce documents and Exhibits P6 to P9 are the copies of the documents. 2. The challenge is against Exhibits P3 and P5. In Exhibit P3 what is stated is that after adding grace mark and the mark in the OMR test if he gets the minimum cut off marks alone he will W.P.(C)No.34451/08 -2- be eligible for inclusion in the rank list, but it was found that he was not eligible. 3. The Commission has filed a affidavit. It is explained in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the counter affidavit that verification of original documents of candidates was conducted from June 23rd to July 1, 2008. Suitability assessment of physically handicapped candidates was fixed to be held on 16.7.2008. Such candidates were included provisionally in the probability list by giving maximum weightage marks notionally (12% of the maximum marks for the written test in the case of blind, deaf and dumb and 10% in the case of orthopaedically handicapped candidates) for their disability. Thus 96 physically handicapped candidates including the petitioner were included provisionally in the probability test. The petitioner was sent memo dated 4.7.2008 to attend before the Board constituted to assess the suitability of the physically handicapped candidates on 16.7.2008. 4. It is stated in paragraph No.4 that on 16.7.2008, before the interview, the original documents of physically handicapped persons were scrutinised and was found that 42 candidates including the petitioner were not eligible for maximum marks for their disability. Even if the marks for the OMR test and grace W.P.(C)No.34451/08 -3- marks for disability eligible to them as per existing rules are taken together, these 42 persons including the petitioner had not secured the minimum marks for inclusion in the main list or supplementary ranked list. Hence they were not permitted to attend the interview thereafter for assessing suitability. It is explained that as per the existing procedure, suitability of only those physically handicapped candidates who are eligible to be included in the ranked list are conducted and the purpose of interview is only to assess their physical fitness whether they can perform the duties attached to the post and no interview marks are awarded to them during such interview. 5. There is no case for the petitioner that he was entitled for such minimum marks after evaluation of the certificate and adding the marks of OMR test. In that view of the matter, as the petitioner was found not eligible going by the minimum marks required, his name cannot be included in the rank list. Hence the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/-( T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) dsn