IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 16TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 19379 of 2006(F) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- T.R.MADHU KUMAR, RAJALAYAM, T.C.28/448, PALKKULANGARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 024. BY SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. *ADDL. R2 IMPLEADED 2. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (SERVICE-D) DEPARMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, *ADDL. R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT.D 16.12.2008 IN IA. 15788/2008. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.19379/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- RELEVANT EXTRACT OF NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN THE KERALA GAZETTE DTD. 17.2.2004 BY THE RESPONDENT. P2:- RELEVANT PAGES OF THE RANKED LIST FOR THE POST OF AMVI IN THE MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE ADVICE MEMO DTD. 17.12.2005 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P3(a):- RELEVANT EXTRACT OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DT. 12.1.2006 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS. P4:- COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O. (MS) NO.21/78/GAD DTD. 11.1.1978. P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 2.3.2006 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P6:- COPY OF THE PUBLICATION EFFECTED BY THE IST RESPONDENT IN MATHRUBHUMI THOZHILVEEDHI DTD. IST JANUARY , 2005. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.19379 OF 2006 ------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner claims to be an meritorious sports person. He participated in the selection process conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission for selecting candidates for appointment to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector in the Motor Vehicles Department of the Government of Kerala. The Kerala Public Service Commission published Ext.P2 rank list, in which the petitioner is shown as rank No.52. He was advised in his turn and he has already joined service. The petitioner now contends that he should have been assigned higher rank than 52 and consequently his seniority should also be revised. The basis of the contention is that by Ext.P4 order, the Government has decided that in respect of meritorious sports persons the weightage marks as prescribed in Ext.P4 should be awarded to candidates. Going by Ext.P4 a sports person who has represented the State in the national level events is entitled to W.P.(c)No.19379 2 20% weightage marks. The petitioner being a person, who represented the State in the National level Wrestling competitions, the petitioner is entitled to that 20% marks is his contention. The petitioner contends that the cut off marks for selection in the written test was 81 and he is entitled to have 20% of the total marks for written test and interview added to the marks he scored, which has not been given to the petitioner. Had the petitioner been given that mark also he would have come much higher in rank is his contention. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent, wherein the stand taken is that the petitioner has been awarded the marks as per Ext.P4 Government Order as well and his rank was determined taking into account his total marks for written test and interview plus 20% of the marks in the interview as weightage as per Ext.P4 order. Therefore, according to the PSC the petitioner has been given his due rank in accordance with his marks secured in the written test and interview as also weightage marks as per Ext.P4. As such, there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner, is the W.P.(c)No.19379 3 stand of the PSC. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the additional second respondent State of Kerala wherein the Government has taken a stand that as to how this 20% marks have to be awarded is for the Public Service Commission to decide. 4. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner wherein the stand taken is that 20% marks should be calculated on the total marks for the written test and interview. According to the petitioner, since the petitioner had secured 81 marks in the written test and 5 marks is the minimum required to be secured in the interview for being included in the rank list, the petitioner should have been given 20% of 86 marks at least. 5. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. Since there was a dispute as to whether the 20% marks as per Ext.P4 Government Order should be on the total marks for written test and interview or marks in the interview alone, I directed the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC to produce before this Court the norms prescribed by the PSC in that W.P.(c)No.19379 4 regard. The learned Standing Counsel has produced before me a Circular No.Cir.13/87 dated 3.5.1987 issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission, in which the Public Service Commission has laid down the following norms for awarding marks to meritorious sportsmen as per Ext.P4 Government Order which reads thus: “Meritorious Sportsmen: Meritorious sportsmen will be given grace marks on the basis of the Government Order dated 11.01.78, In this case only the claims of the candidates who have secured marks equal to or above the marks basis prescribed by the Commission for preparing the Short List/Ranked List, will be considered. If selection is made on the basis of marks for the Written Test alone, weightage will be calculated as in the Government Order dated 11.01.78, taking into account the percentage of marks for the Written Test. For this purpose the candidates will be asked to produce the original documents and the orders of the Member of the Commission should be obtained for awarding these marks. This can be done along with the interview of P.H. Candidates. If selection is made on the basis of interview alone or on the basis of the marks for the Written Test/qualifying examinations/practical Test and Interview, the percentage of marks for the interview alone will be taken into account for awarding the weightage marks for sportsmen. The above orders are brought into force with immediate effect. Necessary amendments to the Public Service Commission Office Manual will be issued from A1 Section”. Going by the same, if the selection is made on the basis of written test and interview, the percentage of marks in the W.P.(c)No.19379 5 interview alone will be taken into account for awarding weightage marks for sportsmen. Here, the selection is to be made based on both written test and interview. Therefore, going by the said circular only interview marks can be taken into account for the purpose of calculating 20% marks as per Ext.P4 for meritorious sports persons. The petitioner has not chosen to challenge the norms fixed by the PSC in this regard. That being so, the petitioner cannot now contend that the petitioner should have been awarded 20% marks taking into account the total marks for written test and interview. 6. The petitioner next contends that even if the 20% marks for sports persons has to be on the interview marks alone, the petitioner should have obtained at least 87 marks in which case the petitioner's rank in the rank list should go up from 52. I am unable to countenance that contention in the absence of any material in support of that contention. The petitioner has not been able to place before me even his own total marks. The petitioner can succeed in that contention only if the petitioner places before me the marks secured by the W.P.(c)No.19379 6 petitioner as well as those secured by 51 persons above him. The petitioner has not made any attempt in that regard. Without any materials before me, I am unable to even consider that contention. Therefore, that contention also fails. Resultantly, the petitioner has not been able to satisfy this Court that the petitioner should have been given a higher rank than 52 given in Ext.P2 rank list. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any reliefs in this writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(c)No.19379 7 W.P.(c)No.19379 8