IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2009 / 16TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 13933 of 2009(J) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- ABDUL SHUKKOOR M., AMBALAMVILA THEKKETHIL, KERALAPURAM, PERUMPUZHA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.V.K.SATHYANATHAN MR.P.V.DILEEP RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THULASI HILLS, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. MR. MURALEEDHARAN, DEPUTY COMMANDANT, (OFFICER-IN-CHARGE FOR SELECTION OF POLICE CONSTABLES IN A.P.BATTALION), A.R.CAMP, KOLLAM. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.ANTONY MUKKATH. R2 & R3 BY ADV. MR.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P(C) No.13933 of 2009-J ------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of August, 2009. J U D G M E N T Heard Sri.V.K.Sathyananthan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Alexander Thomas, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala Public Service Commission. 2. The petitioner was an applicant for appointment to the post of Police Constable in the Armed Police Battalion in Kollam District. He was called to appear for the physical efficiency test held on 11.5.2009 at TKM College of Engineering, Kollam. According to the petitioner though he had cleared five items namely 100 mtrs race, Long Jump, Throwing the Cricket Ball, Rope climbing and 1500 metrs race, the fourth respondent who was the person in charge of the physical efficiency test, who is in inimical terms with the petitioner’s brother, a Police Constable, deliberately declared that he failed to complete 1500 metrs race within the time limit of 5.44 seconds. 3. The respondents have filed an additional affidavit and produced along with it the detailed instructions and also the guidelines governing the holding of the physical efficiency test. They also dispute the fact that the fourth respondent has deliberately taken the stand that the petitioner did not clear 1500 metrs race within the stipulated time of W.P(C) No.13933 of 2009-J 2 5.44 seconds. 4. From a reading of the writ petition it is evident that the case set out by the petitioner is that for extraneous considerations, the fourth respondent wrongly declared that the petitioner did not complete 1500 metrs race within the stipulated time. The petitioner contends that the fourth respondent is in inimical terms with his brother. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the result sheet of the physical efficiency test held on 11.5.2009, in which the petitioner participated was made available to me. It discloses that the petitioner cleared only four out of the eight items and he did not clear 1500 metrs race within the stipulated time. The members and Chairman of the Board which conducted the physical efficiency test have signed the result sheet. On going through the result sheet, I do not find any irregularity in the entries therein or any overwriting in so far it relates to the petitioner. Apart from the ipse dixit of the petitioner that the fourth respondent had declared that none of the relatives of Armed Police Constables will be selected, there is no cogent material to establish the said contention. The result sheet discloses that the petitioner did not clear the 1500 metrs race and passed only four out of the eight items. In the absence of any cogent material to show that the fourth respondent had acted with vengeance it would not be proper for this Court to upset the selection made by the W.P(C) No.13933 of 2009-J 3 Kerala Public Service Commission. In any case besides the fourth respondent there were three other persons who were also associated with the physical efficiency test. I therefore find no merit in the challenge to the decision of the Kerala Public Service Commission that the petitioner did not clear the physical efficiency test. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE //True Copy// PA to Judge ab