IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 18TH MAY 2010 / 28TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15026 of 2010(C) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- SABANA.E., W/O. ASIF A.K., AGED 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT 'PERINKILAKAM', FAROOK COLLEGE P.O. CALICUT - 673 632. BY ADVS SRI.SAKIR.K.H., SRI.N.M.SIYAD. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (P&A) AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, RAJIV GANDHI BHAVAN, SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT, NEW DELHI - 110 003. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, RAJIV GANDHI BHAVAN, SAFDARIJUNG AIRPORT, NEW DELHI - 110 003. BY ADV. SRI. K.L.NARASIMHAN, SC, AIRPORT AUTHORITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.15026 of 2010 (C) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 18th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Post Graduate in Physics with Mathematics. The respondent Authority issued Ext.P1 notification inviting applications for various posts including Junior Executive (ATC). Being a candidate satisfying one of the qualifications prescribed, the petitioner made her application in response to Ext.P1. She was called for written test and appeared for the same. However, the petitioner submits that the questions were framed in such a manner that there was no question concerning her subject. It is stated that those questions can be answered only by engineering graduates and therefore she was in a disadvantaged position. In view of the above, she submitted Exts.P3 & P4 requesting for appropriate ranking and also for conducting a fresh test. There was no response and therefore, the writ petition is filed. When a notification inviting applications is published there is nothing unusual in the appointing authority specifying alternate WP(C) No.15026/2010 -2- qualifications for eligible candidates, which may include both technical and non-technical qualifications. Considering the requirements of the job, in order to assess the suitability of the candidates, it is always open to the appointing authority to adopt the manner in which merit of a candidate is to be assessed by written test, interview or both. In this case, exercising that liberty, the appointing authority has conducted written test framing appropriate questions. In such a case, it is not proper for this Court to sit in appeal over the wisdom of the appointing authority. In my view, unless malafides are established, these are matters beyond the power of judicial review. Therefore, I do not think that the petitioner has made out a case for interference. The writ petition fails and is therefore dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg