IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2011 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 33023 of 2011(C) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KRISHNANKUTTY.P., PALLIPPURATH HOUSE,THALAYANAKKAD KATTUKULAM SOUTH.P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679514. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE KERALA STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE KERALA STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM PALACE.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004. BY ADV. SRI. P.C. SASIDHARAN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: dlk WP(C).No. 33023 of 2011(C) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 17-01-2011. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 13-7-2011. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 27-7-2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. dlk K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.33023 of 2011-C. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 12th December, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner, a candidate for selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector in the Motor Vehicles Department, has filed this writ petition complaining that the physical examination conducted as part of the selection process was improper and liable to be set aside. The petitioner had been shortlisted after a written test. He had appeared for a physical examination on 27.7.2011. At that time, his chest measurements were recorded as 74 cms. when normal and on expansion as 78 cms. The petitioner was dissatisfied with the said measurements and objected to the same. Therefore, a re-measurement was conducted on 5.8.2011. On such re-measurement, he had 82 cms. as the normal chest measurement. But, the expanded measurement was WP(C).No.33023/2011-C. 2 83 cms. The said reading also is wrong, according to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the issue of appropriate directions for conducting the measurement again and for a further direction to interview him for the selection afresh. 2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, there is no likelihood of the difference between normal and expanded chest measurement of a person being only one cm. as recorded in the case of the petitioner. Therefore, since his normal measurement is 82 cms. the expanded measurement recorded as 83 cms. is palpably wrong, it is submitted. 3. The Standing Counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission ('PSC' for short) on the other hand points out that the expanded measurement of a candidate gets substantially reduced in cases where the candidate purposely keeps his chest expanded to a certain level with the object of recording a high normal measurement. In WP(C).No.33023/2011-C. 3 such cases, the difference of five cms. between the normal and expanded chest measurements would not be obtained. Since in this case, the petitioner has not been able to achieve the required measurement of 82 – 87 cms., it is submitted that, he is not entitled to any relief. Further, according to the counsel for the PSC, wherever, a re- measurement is conducted, the measurements are taken only in the presence of a Member of the PSC and sufficient care is taken to ensure correctness of the measurements. Therefore, it is contended that the measurements are correct. 4. I have considered the rival contentions anxiously. The petitioner had objected to the original measurement conducted by the PSC and therefore, a re-measurement was conducted. The petitioner has not been able to achieve the stipulated measurements, even on re-measurement. Though the petitioner has contended that normally the difference between the expanded chest measurement and WP(C).No.33023/2011-C. 4 the normal measurement should be at least five cms., no presumption of the said nature can be drawn for the purpose of entering a finding that the measurements taken by the PSC in this case are wrong. There is absolutely no material or evidence before me to justify any such conclusion. Since the counsel for the PSC asserts that the chest measurement of the petitioner has been properly taken and since there is nothing on record to show that the said assertion is wrong, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief in this writ petition. 5. Further, as rightly pointed out by the counsel for the PSC, the measurement was taken on 27.7.2011 and the re-measurement was taken on 5.8.2011. This writ petition is filed only on 9.12.2011, after a gap of more than four months. The chest measurements of any person, according to the counsel for the PSC, can be substantially improved by regular effort and exercise within a period of four months. Therefore, there are absolutely no grounds for directing the WP(C).No.33023/2011-C. 5 measurements to be taken again, at this length of time. If the petitioner had been serious about his objections, he would certainly have been more vigilant in approaching this Court and would have filed this writ petition immediately on coming to know that the re-measurement conducted was also not of any advantage on him. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, (Judge) Kvs/-