IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2008 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 7852 of 2008(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ RAJEEV M.R., INDUVILASOM, MANIKANTESWARAM P.O. BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE SMT.MEERA GOPINATH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C). 7852 /2008 -------------------- Dated this the 24th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Pursuant to Ext.P1 notification issued by the PSC for the post of Electricity Worker (Mazdoor) in the Kerala State Electricity Board, petitioner applied and had participated in the cycling test as also in the physical fitness test and was shortlisted. In so far as the Physical Standards prescribed in the notification are concerned, the following is relevant to the context. Minimum Height - 5' 2” (157.48 cm.) Vision - Normal (Free from Colour Blindness) 2. Apparently, to certify the physical standards, petitioner subjected himself for vision test in the Government Hospital, Peroorkada. He submits that while riding the motorcycle, in order to shield himself from dust, he had worn his spectacles and therefore, by Ext.P5 certificate, the doctor who examined him, apart from certifying the other physical standards, also certified as W.P.(C).7852/2008 2 follows “Corrected with glasses – Has no colour blindness”. Ext.P5 was produced by the petitioner before the Commission and since the prescription in the notification in so far as the vision is concerned is “normal”, they took note of Ext.P5 and issued Ext.P6 rejection memo stating that since the petitioner's vision has been corrected with lenses, he cannot be included in the rank list as such. Petitioner realising the mistake in Ext.P5, produced Exts.P7, P8 and P10. These would show that the petitioner has normal vision in both eyes and does not suffer from colour blindness. According to the petitioner, he has been excluded for no fault of his, though it is conceded that if Ext.P5 certificate is treated as a certificate of his vision, PSC cannot be found fault with. He submits that he does not wear power glasses that his vision is normal and the doctor, who examined him while issuing Ext.P5, did not take note of the fact that he was wearing only plain glasses without any power. He submits that three different doctors have certified that he has normal vision and is free from colour blindness and therefore, PSC W.P.(C).7852/2008 3 may examine these facts and take an appropriate decision. He submitted Ext.P11 before the District Officer. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.D.Kishore and the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC, Mr.Alexander Thomas. 4. Alexander Thomas submits that PSC cannot be faulted with for going by Ext.P5, produced by the petitioner. Law does not oblige the Commission to, thereafter, refer to the certificate produced by the candidate. 5. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the Commission, as a matter of law, is impeccable. Nevertheless, I think it is appropriate that the Commission may consider whether the certificates, Exts.P7, P8 and P10, should be looked into and if it is a case where the doctor who issued Ext.P5 certificate was not very diligent, taking note of the fact that the W.P.(C).7852/2008 4 spectacles worn by the petitioner were of plain glasses and not power glasses. 6. In the circumstances, writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to permit the petitioner to file a representation pointing out these aspects before the first respondent within a period of three weeks from today. He shall make himself available for any enquiry which the Secretary may deem it appropriate to conduct and order shall be passed on such representation within a period of six weeks thereafter. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition also along with the original of the certificates, Exts.P7, P8 and P10, and, if necessary, a fresh certificate from the author of Ext.P5. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs W.P.(C).7852/2008 5