IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 3RD APRIL 2009 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 6430 of 2009(W) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SMITHA KARUNAN,HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER(SENIOR),GOVERNMENT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, THANIAM, THRIPRAYAR, THRISSUR.(RESIDING AT QUARTER NO.F4,K.S.E.B.STAFF QUARTERS COLONY, VIYYUR POST, THRISSUR. BY SMT.SUMATHI DANDAPANI ( SENIOR ADVOCATE) BY ADV. MR.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY,TECHNICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. MR.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC FOR R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.A.J.VARGHESE FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.6430 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated 3rd April, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard Smt.Sumathi Dandapani, the learned Senior Advocate 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 Lecturer in Computer Science and Engineering. She belongs to the Ezhava community. She was selected and included in Ext.P5 ranked list published on 14.10.2008, by Ext.P8 Addendum Notification published on 2.12.2008. The rank assigned to the petitioner is Rank No.32 A. The petitioner challenges the rank assigned to her in the ranked list contending that her merit was not properly assessed and only six marks were awarded to her in the interview. In this writ petition, the petitioner prays for quashing the interview proceedings which led to the publication of Ext.P5 ranked list. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Kerala Public Service Commission had made available the mark list containing the marks secured by all candidates who appeared for the interview. It discloses that the petitioner was awarded only six months in the interview. Though the petitioner has alleged that due to extraneous WP(C).No.6430/2009 2 considerations she was awarded low marks, there is no material in support of the said contention. No reason is stated as to why the Interview Committee was prompted to award low marks to the petitioner. Further, the petitioner has not chosen to join any of the candidates included in Ext.P5 ranked list as amended by Ext.P8, as parties to this writ petition. In these circumstances, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge TKS