IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2010 / 18TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 26682 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHAJI K., KOTHARATHAZHATHETHIL VEEDU, ARUNNOTTIMANGALAM PO., MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC FOR R2 & 3 R1 BY SR.G.P.SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------ WP(C) No.26682 of 2009 (E) -------------------------- Dated, this the 8th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 is a notification issued by the Public Service Commission for appointment to the post of Police Constable (Armed Police Battalion). Among the specifications, insofar as the Scheduled Caste candidates are concerned, the minimum height specified is 160 CM. The petitioner submitted an application in response to Ext.P1 notification. He appeared for written test and was successful. By Ext.P2, he was called for physical efficiency test. 2. Ext.P1 notification states that physical measurement of candidates will be taken at the time of physical efficiency test and those who do not possess the physical measurement will not be admitted for the physical efficiency test. The petitioner appeared in response to Ext.P2. His physical measurement was taken by a Board consisting of the Chairman and 3 members, the proceedings of which has been made available by the learned standing counsel appearing for the PSC. Against his claim of having a height of 161 WP(C) No.26682/2009 -2- CM, his height was measured as 159 CM. 3. Disputing the correctness of measurement, he submitted an appeal. Accordingly another Board consisting of three members, in the presence of Prof.P.J.Joy, a member of the PSC, measured the height of the petitioner on 05/06/2009. On that occasion also his height was measured as 159 CM. The proceedings of original measurement and re-measurement have been signed by the petitioner. On account of the fact that the petitioner did not satisfy the minimum height specified in Ext.P1 notification, he was not included in the ranked list. 4. In this writ petition, the petitioner has produced Exts.P4 & P5. Ext.P4 is the certificate issued by the Employment Officer, Town Employment Exchange, Mavelikkara stating that the petitioner's height is 161 CM. Ext.P5 is the Certificate of Physical Fitness issued by the Assistant Surgeon certifying that the height of the petitioner is 161 CM. Relying on Exts.P4 & P5, the petitioner contends that the measurement of his height, as reflected in the proceedings of the PSC is incorrect and therefore for that reason, this Court should interfere with the measurement of his height. WP(C) No.26682/2009 -3- 5. Admittedly, the selection process is totally within the domain of the PSC. On the first occasion, a Board constituted by the PSC measured the height of the petitioner and his height was found to be 159 CM. On appeal filed by the petitioner, his height was re- measured and was again found to be as 159 CM. Both these proceedings show that the petitioner had signed the proceedings as well. The constitutional body, which has been entrusted with the process of selection, constituted a Board for measuring the height of the candidates including the petitioner. This Board has measured the petitioner's height and found it to be 159 CMs. This has been confirmed in appeal also. Therefore, once on actual measurement, if the height has been so assessed, unless there are strong reasons to doubt the correctness of measurements taken, this Court should not interfere with the assessment that has done by the PSC. It is true that in Exts.P4 & P5, the height of the petitioner is certified as 161 CM. However, none of these documents show on what basis, the measurement has been assessed, and in my view, these certificates are insufficient to hold that the measurement done by the PSC is wrong. As held by this Court in Kerala Public Service WP(C) No.26682/2009 -4- Commission v. Ashokan (2003(2) KLT 177), once the Constitutional Body like the PSC, which has been entrusted with the task of recruiting candidates, assessed their suitability for the post notified, in the absence of strong materials, this Court should not interfere with the assessment done by them. In this case, there is dearth of materials calling for interference and for that reason, I am not inclined to interfere with the assessment done by the PSC. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg