A petitioner challenging the selection process of a University for a Typist post failed in a written test. He alleged questions were descriptive and unrelated to the syllabus. The Court held the writ petition was meritless.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2010 / 28TH JYAISTHA 1932
WP(C).No. 19028 of 2010(C)
PETITIONER(S):
SUBODH KUMAR, S/O.RAMAN, KONDARAMPATT MALAYAM PARAMBATH HOUSE, NEDUVA, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.SAJU J.VALLYARA SMT.P.LAKSHMY
RESPONDENT(S):
BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.
W.P.(C) No. 19028 of 2010 C
Dated this the 18th day of June, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner was an applicant for the post of L.D.Typist in the University of Calicut, which was notified as per Ext.P1. As part of the selection process initiated as per Ext.P1, a written test was conducted on 07-02-2010. The petitioner appeared for the test but failed in the test. Thereafter, he has filed Ext.P3 representation before the second respondent, raising grievances against the written test held on 07-02-2010. According to him, most of the questions were not related to the syllabus and also to the post applied for. That apart, no choices for the questions were given. Yet another grievance is that most of the questions were descriptive in nature. Admittedly, the petitioner had participated in the selection process. Having participated in the selection process and failed to qualify in the test, the petitioner cannot be permitted to turn around and challenge the selection process in the light of the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court reported in K.A.Nagamani Vs. Indian Airlines [2009 (5) SCC 515]. That apart, in Ext.P1 it is notified as
WPC.19028/2010
: 2 :
follows:-
“ The selection will be made after conducting a competitive test and interview.”
General Knowledge, General English and proficiency in Regional Language(Malayalam).
In such circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that the questions were not objective type but were of descriptive in nature cannot be a reason to interfere with the selection proess initiated as per Ext.P1. It is up to the University to formulate the modality of its selection process. So long as there is no arbitrariness or illegality attributed in the selection process, a judicial review of the selection process is uncalled for. In view of the said circumstances, I am of the view that the writ petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly it is dismissed.
(C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
aks
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging the fairness of a writing test conducted by an educational institution for recruitment can be allowed after the petitioner failed the test.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
K.A.Nagamani Vs. Indian AirlinesReferred¶21
K.A.Nagamani Vs. Indian Airlines [2009 (5) SCC 515] · Who else cites this
Subodh Kumar
The University of Calicut
The Registrar, University of Calicut
C.T. Ravikumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
