IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/25TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 33049 of 2011 (E) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S) : ---------------------- LIGIKUMAR, LEENA NIVAS, CANTONMENT NORTH, UPASANA NAGAR-38, KOLLAM- 691 001. BY ADV. SRI. KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S) : ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001. 2. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. SRI. K.M. ABDUL KHADER R2 BY SRI. P.C.SASIDHARAN, S.C., KPSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-12-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: NS WP(C).No. 33049 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS : EXHIBIT-P1 : COPY OF THE INTERVIEW MEMO DATED 22.8.2009. EXHIBIT-P2 : COPY OF THE C CERTIFICATE OF NCC DATED 3.5.2002. EXHIBIT-P3 : COPY OF THE MERIT CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY KERALA STATE AMATEUR ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION. EXHIBIT-P4 : COPY OF THE RANKED LIST FOR THE POST OF EXCISE INSPECTOR. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL / TRUE COPY / NS P.A. TO JUDGE K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO:33049 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th December, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioner is a candidate included in the supplementary list, Ext.P4 prepared by the Kerala Public Service Commission ('PSC' for short) for appointment to the post of Excise Inspector. According to the petitioner, he is a person who has significant achievements to his credit in the field of Sports and Games. He also possesses a 'C' certificate from the NCC. On the basis of his extra curricular distinctions, the petitioner is entitled to weightage marks as provided in the Government orders that are applicable. Accordingly, the petitioner has been granted 4 marks for his achievements in Sports and Games and five marks for possessing `C' certificate in the NCC. The petitioner has obtained 61 marks in his written examination. By adding his weightage marks to the marks of his written examination and interview, he has obtained a total of 79 marks. He has, accordingly, been ranked No.1 in the supplementary list for the Ezhava community. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the procedure adopted by the PSC. What the PSC has WPC 33049/2011 2 done is to rank the candidates on the basis of the marks obtained by each candidate in the written examination. On the above basis, the last candidate included in the main list is a person who has obtained 68 marks in the written examination. Since the petitioner has obtained only 61 marks in the written examination, his name was not included in the main list. The case of the petitioner is that if his weightage marks had also been added to the marks obtained by him in the written examination, the total 79 marks obtained by him would have ensured that he was ranked in the main list. It is the above procedure that is being adopted in the case of physically handicapped persons. According to the petitioner, the PSC ought to have followed the above procedure while ranking the candidates in Ext.P4 list also. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the issue of appropriate directions for rectifying the above anomalous situation. 2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the main list Ext.P4 shows that many candidates who have obtained a total marks of 77 or 78 and even 75 have been ranked in the main list. However, the petitioner who has obtained a total marks of 79 has been excluded therefrom and has been included only in the supplementary list of candidates for the Ezhava community. Further, by not WPC 33049/2011 3 following the procedure that the PSC is adopting for ranking physically handicapped persons, the petitioner is being discriminated against. 3. Adv.P.C.Sasidharan who appears for the PSC on the other hand submits that the candidates have been ranked in Ext.P4 list on the basis of the marks obtained by them in the written examination. After such ranking, the weightage marks are also added on while finalising the list after conducting the interview. According to the counsel, the procedure adopted by the PSC is in accordance with Rule-12 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure. Accordingly, the petitioner cannot insist that the weightage marks should be added on in violation of the said rule. Apart from the above, according to the counsel for the PSC, the rank list was published on 30.11.2009 whereas the present writ petition is filed only on 9th December 2011, more than two years after the list was finalised. Consequently, on the ground of delay also, the petitioner is not entitled to succeed. 4. I have considered the rival contentions anxiously. 5. It is worth noticing that, the marks obtained by a candidate in the written examination is the marks that WPC 33049/2011 4 represent the merit of a candidate. The weightage marks are awarded on various other considerations recognised by the various Government orders for giving preference to certain categories of persons. Such considerations for the grant of weightage are diverse in nature and appear at considerable variance with each other, without there being any uniformity. Therefore, the uniform criteria of merit on the basis of which the candidates could be graded and ranked is the score obtained by each one of them in the written examination. In the above view of the matter, I am not satisfied that there is any infirmity in the procedure for ranking the candidates that has been adopted by the PSC. 6. The counsel for the PSC has drawn my attention to Rule - 12 of the PSC Rules of Procedure. Rule 12 reads as follows: “12. All the candidates interviewed and who obtained not less than the minimum marks fixed by the Commission shall be included in the ranked list prepared in the order of merit; Provided where the candidates have been called for interview for the purpose of satisfying the rules of reservation alone such candidates who have got not less than the prescribed minimum marks in the interview shall be included in the supplementary list or lists arranged in the order of merit among the candidates belonging to each class: Provided further that the Commission may also prepare list or lists of such categories of WPC 33049/2011 5 candidates who have got not less than the prescribed minimum marks in the interview and who are entitled to priority according to the terms of the notification inviting applications. Provided further that the Commission may also prepare lists of overaged candidates who have secured not less than the prescribed minimum marks in the interview and who are eligible to be considered for appointment in the absence of candidates who conform to the rules regarding age limits.” 7. The first proviso to the above rule stipulates that where the candidates have been called for interview for the purpose of satisfying the rules of reservation alone, the candidates who have got not less than the prescribed minimum marks in the interview shall be included in the supplementary list. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is not a candidate who has been called for an interview for the purpose of satisfying the rules of reservation alone and therefore, the principle in the first proviso is not applicable to him. It is true that the petitioner is not a candidate who has been called for the interview for the purpose of satisfying the rules of reservation alone. But, he is a candidate who has obtained less than the marks obtained by the last candidate who has been included in the main list. Therefore, the petitioner's name can legitimately be included only in the supplementary list and by including WPC 33049/2011 6 his name as rank No.1 in the supplementary list for Ezhava Community, the PSC has acted only in a proper manner. 8. Apart from all that is stated above, as rightly pointed out by the counsel for the PSC, this is also a case in which the delay in challenging the rank list is considerable. Ext.P4 rank list that was published on 30.11.2009 is being challenged only at this length of time and there is absolutely no explanation for the delay. 9. For the foregoing reasons, I am not satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj /True copy/ P.S.to Judge WPC 33049/2011 7