The Court dismissed the writ petition seeking inclusion of a petitioner in a ranked list for an electricity worker post. The petitioner failed the minimum height requirement, and the Court refused to interfere with the Public Service Commission's measurement and selection process based on a medical certificate.
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
TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/30TH ASWINA, 1935
WP(C).No. 21967 of 2013 (U)
PETITIONER(S):
RAJESH P.R
PALLIKKAVUVELI, KANICHUKULANGARA, KANICHUKULANGARA P.O ALAPPUZHA- 688 544.
BY ADVS.SMT.K.N.RAJANI
SRI.NAVEEN.T
RESPONDENT(S):
R3,R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC R1,2 BY SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 21967 of 2013 (U)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
//TRUE COPY//
P.A.TO JUDGE
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
==========================
W.P.(C). No.21967 OF 2013 ==========================
Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2013
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was an applicant for appointment to the post of Mazdoor (Electricity Worker) in the Kerala State Electricity Board pursuant to Ext.P1 notification. He came out successful in the OMR test and thereafter, subjected to physical measurement. It was found that he was lacking the minimum prescribed height viz., 157.48 cm. Admittedly, the minimum prescribed hight specified in Ext.P1 notification is 157.48 cm. The contention of the petitioner is that Ext.P6 medical certificate would reveal that he is having a height of 158 cm and therefore, he submitted Ext.P5 representation before the Kerala Public Service Commission carrying the request to re-measure his hight. It is the inaction on the part of the respondents on Ext.P5 and proceeding with the selection process initiated as per Ext.P1 that
W.P.(C).21967/13
2
constrained the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the
captioned writ petition mainly with the following prayers:-
standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and also the
W.P.(C).21967/13
3
learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4.
respondents 3 and 4. Along with the counter affidavit, Ext.R3(a) physical measurement sheet has been produced. It is stated in the
counter affidavit that the petitioner was subjected to physical measurement by a duly constituted Board and in the original measurement his height was recorded as 155 cm. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the measurement, the petitioner requested for remeasurement and thereupon, he was subjected to re-measurement in the presence of a senior member of the Commission and an expert from the Physical Education Department. It was found that he was having a height of 155.5 cm. Thus, the two measurements would establish that the petitioner is having height less than the minimum prescribed height of 157.48 cm. In fact, they would go to show that he is having height less than 156 cm. The petitioner relies on Ext.P6 medical certificate to contend that he is having a height of 158 cm.
W.P.(C).21967/13
4
The certification is to the effect that he was medically examined and found no disease or infirmity which would render him unsuitable for any government service. True that in Ext.P6 his height was recorded as 158 cm. But, such certificate issued by a medical officer cannot be said to have any impact on a selection process. Based on Ext.P6, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that the measurement and remeasurement effected by the PSC as part of the selection process is liable to be interfered with. Evidently, the selecting the candidates for the post of Electricity Worker is left with the PSC. The physical measurement test was also to be conducted by them. It was originally conducted and thereafter on the request of the petitioner remeasurement was also effected. In this context, it is also to be noted that the selection process initiated as per Ext.P1 has now reached up to the stage of preparation and publication of the ranked list. The prayer of the petitioner is for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 3 and 4 to include him in the ranked list to be published for appointment to the post of Mazdoor in K.S.E.B in
W.P.(C).21967/13
5
Alappuzha District. As noticed hereinbefore, the ranked list was published pursuant to the selection process initiated as per Ext.P1. A person who has failed in the physical measurement and thus became ineligible to be included in the ranked list cannot be ordered to be included in the ranked list. The learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 relied on a decision of this Court in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Ashokan reported in 2003 (2) KLT 177 to contend that the prayer of the petitioner is untenable. In the said decision the Division Bench held thus:-
“When the responsibility of selecting candidates for posts coming under the purview of the Public Service Commission is entrusted with the Public Service Commission and when the Commission has its own machinery and procedure for taking physical measurement of candidates and when the Rules of the Commission provide for redressal of grievances, if any, regarding any mistake or error in the measurement, it is not open to this Court to ignore the measurements made by the Public Service Commission and to arrange an independent measurement by the Security Officer of the Court.”
True that, in that case, the learned Judge of this Court directed for
W.P.(C).21967/13
6
conducting independent measurement by the Security Officer of this
Court. That order was taken up in appeal. In the said decision the Division Bench further held:-
“We are of the considered view that the functions and responsibilities entrusted with the Public Service Commission should be left to be discharged by the Commission and no other authority including the Court cannot usurp those functions and responsibilities. If there is any patent mistake or error which calls for correction, the Court may direct the Public Service Commission to reconsider the matter.”
In this case, evidently, the petitioner on being dissatisfied with the measurements originally taken availed the remedy of appeal and
thereupon, he was subjected to re-measurement. Original measurement as also the re-measurement would reveal that the petitioner is having height less than 156 cm whereas the prescribed minimum required height is 157.48 cm. In the said circumstances, this Court will not be justified is issuing any direction to the PSC to include him in the ranked list already published. In view of the decision in Asokan' s case (supra), I am of the considered view that
W.P.(C).21967/13
7
when the responsibility of selecting candidates for appointment to the
post of Mazdoor left with the PSC and in discharge of such responsibilities and liabilities cast upon them they conducted measurements and finding a candidate lacking the prescribed minimum height, in the absence of any allegation of mala fides there
is no scope for directing for a further measurement after a remeasurement conducted by the PSC solely relying on Ext.P6 certificate. I am of the considered view that Ext.P6 cannot be a reason for interfering with the selection process conducted by the PSC for appointment to the post of Mazdoor based on Ext.P1 notification. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is liable to fail and accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)
spc/
W.P.(C).21967/13
8
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
W.P.(C).21967/13
9
JUDGMENT
September, 2010
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court can direct the Public Service Commission to include a disqualified petitioner in the ranked list despite re-measurement showing he failed the minimum height criteria.
Whether a medical certificate stating a different height can override the measurements conducted by the selection authority.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kerala Public Service Commission v. AshokanFollowed¶59
Kerala Public Service Commission v. Ashokan 2003 (2) KLT 177
Rajesh P.R
Kerala State Electricity Board
The Kerala Public Service Commission
C.T.Ravikumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
