Allowed

Kerala Public Service Commission v. Muhammed Shafeer M.M

Kerala HC18 Dec 2019OP(KAT)/513/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed the KPSC's appeal against a Tribunal order directing the Commission to consider an applicant for a Fireman Driver post. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to rely on previous KPSC measurements where the applicant cleared the height requirement, rejecting a later erroneous measurement.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's appeal was rejected, and the order of the Tribunal directing the inclusion of the respondent based on previous measurements was upheld.

Kerala Public Service Commission Vs Muhammed Shafeer M.M — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶7

OP(KAT).No.513 OF 2019

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA(EKM) 1411/2019 DATED 23-09-2019 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶9

PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

¶10

KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004, KERALA.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC

¶12

RESPONDENT/APPLICANT:

¶13

MUHAMMED SHAFEER M.M AGED 28 YEARS

¶14

S/O.MOIDEEN, MULLATH VALAPPIL HOUSE, KDAVALLUR, KADAVALLUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680543, KERALA.

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI

¶18

THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

OP(KAT).No.513 OF 2019

¶20

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Dated this the 18th day of December 2019

¶23

K.Vinod Chandran,J:

¶24

The Kerala Public Service Commission [“KPSC” for brevity] is in appeal against the order of the Tribunal. The issue revolves around the height of the applicant before the Tribunal. The subject selection was to the post of Fireman Driver-cum-Pump Operator (Trainee) notified by the KPSC as per Annexure-A1. The applicant possess all the educational qualifications required for the post but he failed in the physical measurement. The minimum height prescribed as per the notification for selection was 165 cms. for general candidates and 160 cms. for SC/ST candidates.

¶25

2. The applicant having turned out successful in the written test as also a practical driving test was called for physical efficiency test and physical measurement. He was found to be short of height by 1.0 c.m. at 164 cms. The applicant contends that in two other selections carried out

¶26

¶27

OP(KAT).No.513 OF 2019

¶28

by the KPSC itself he was found to have height of 167 cms. The Tribunal found on the basis of the documents produced that in the selection for Civil Police Officer, the applicant was recorded as having height of 167 cms. Again, in the selection conducted to the post Civil Excise Officer, the applicant was found to have height of 167 cms. He is said to be in the rank lists published in pursuance of one of the said selection. The Tribunal, hence, found measurement carried out in the subject selection to be faulty and relied on the earlier measurement of the KPSC itself to direct inclusion of the applicant.

¶29

3. When the matter came up before us, we contemplated a measurement by an independent authority. At that point of time, the learned Standing Counsel for the KPSC, placed before us the judgment of another Division Bench in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Ashokan [2003 (2) KLT 177] wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court had on a similar dispute raised regarding height, directed the Security Officer of the High Court to carry out a measurement, based on which, the Original Petition was allowed. The Division Bench depreciated such practice and

¶30

held that only the KPSC could be directed to reconsider the

¶31

¶32

OP(KAT).No.513 OF 2019

¶33

matter. The KPSC, hence, on its on initiative presumably knowing our mind, constituted a Board consisting of a Member of the Commission, who was formerly a Physical Education Teacher and another Physical Education Teacher. The report is placed before us, which finds the applicant to have 164.8 cms.; 0.2 cms. below that prescribed.

¶34

4. We see from the affidavit filed, which produced Ext.P5 report of the Board constituted by the KPSC that the assessment was carried out as per Anthropometric measurements. The procedure is also delineated in paragraph No.6.

¶35

5. In this context, we have to observe that it is not an independent agency which carried out the measurement and the KPSC itself constituted a Board with one of its members

¶36

included. We do not doubt the genuineness of the measurements carried out. But, however, there could be an error in every such measurement carried out. The Tribunal had relied on earlier measurements carried out by the KPSC itself in two other selections conducted. Therein, the applicant was found to be above 165 cms. in height, which

¶37

is the prescription in the present selection notified by the KPSC.

¶38

6. We also notice that, earlier, the Tribunal had, in

¶39

¶40

OP(KAT).No.513 OF 2019

¶41

O.A.No.354/2015, dealt with a similar case with reference

¶42

to the selection to the post of Sub Inspector of Police, wherein the candidates' measurement in the selection to the post of Civil Excise Officer was relied on to allow the O.A, directing inclusion of the said candidate. The challenge made in O.P.(KAT)No.2/2016 was rejected by a Division Bench of this Court. Identical situation arises here with the only difference that in two different selections conducted by the KPSC itself, the applicant was found to have more than 165 cms. It is also clear that the measurement carried out in the subject selection finding the applicant to have 164 cms. was faulty, since the Board constituted by the KPSC found him to have a height of 164.8 cms. In that context, it is to be pertinently noticed that the re-measurement carried out at the Office of the Commission, pursuant to Annexure A7 also is faulty. We find more credence to the measurement carried out during the selection process in two other instances; i.e.; selection to the posts of Civil Police Officer and Civil Excise Officer. We find no sustainable reason to rely on the separate measurement carried out by the KPSC when its own officials had twice, in the course of valid selection

¶43

procedures found the applicant to have height above

¶44

OP(KAT).No.513 OF 2019

¶45

¶46

165 cms. We, hence, find no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal and we reject the original petition.

Sd/-

K.VINOD CHANDRAN

JUDGE

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

SHG

JUDGE

OP(KAT).No.513 OF 2019

¶55

¶56

APPENDIX

¶57

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶58

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.(EKM) NO.1411 OF 2019 WITH ITS ANNEXURES.
EXHIBIT P1(A1)	TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 14.06.2017 IN RESPECT OF THE CATEGORY NO.070/2017 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1(A2)	TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET OF THE APPLICANT FOR OMR WRITTEN TEST HAVING REGISTER NUMBER Z107089.
EXHIBIT P1(A3)	TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT LIST DATED 17.08.2018 PUBLISHED BY THE RESPONDENT IN CATEGORY NO.070/2017.
EXHIBIT P1(A4)	TRUE COPY OF THE PROFILE ADMISSION TICKET OF THE APPLICANT FOR PRACTICAL TEST IN RESPECT OF THE CATEGORY NO.070/2017.
EXHIBIT P1(A5)	TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT LIST ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 19.12.2018 IN CATEGORY NO.070/2017 FOR PHYSICAL MEASUREMENT AND PHYSICAL EFFICIENCY TEST.
EXHIBIT P1(A6)	TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FOR PHYSICAL MEASUREMENT AND PHYSICAL EFFICIENCY TEST IN RESPECT OF CATEGORY NO.070/2017.
EXHIBIT P1(A7)	TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET ISSUED FOR REMEASUREMENT TO BE HELD ON 18.03.2019 IN RESPECT OF THE SAID CATEGORY NO.070/2017.
EXHIBIT P1(A8)	TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 11.11.2016 IN RESPECT OF CATEGORY NO.340/2016 TO THE POST OF CIVIL EXCISE OFFICER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1(A9)	TRUE COPY OF THE POLICE ADMISSION TICKET OF THE APPLICANT SUITABLE WITH REGISTRATION NO.Z 309329 IN CATEGORY NO.340/2016.
EXHIBIT P1(A10)	TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT FOR PHYSICAL MEASUREMENT AND PHYSICAL EFFICIENCY TEST IN RESPECT OF CATEGORY NO.340/2016.

¶59

OP(KAT).No.513 OF 2019

¶60

¶61

EXHIBIT P1(A11)	TRUE COPY OF THE MAIN LIST IN CATEGORY NO.340/2016 WITH EFFECT FROM 08.04.2019.
EXHIBIT P1(A12)	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 31.01.2018.
EXHIBIT P1(A13)	TRUE COPY OF THE PROFILE ADMISSION TICKET ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT FOR OMR EXAMINATION IN CATEGORY NO.657/2017.
EXHIBIT P1(A14)	TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT LIST DATED 02.04.2019 PUBLISHED BY RESPONDENT IN CATEGORY NO.657/2017 FOR THE PHYSICAL MEASUREMENT AND PHYSICAL EFFICIENCY TEST.
EXHIBIT P1(A15)	TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT FOR PHYSICAL MEASUREMENT AND PHYSICAL EFFICIENCY TEST IN CATEGORY NO.657/2017.
EXHIBIT P1(A16)	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.IDS- II(3)/1755/2019/GW DATED 17.05.2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1(A17)	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.10.2015 IN O.A.NO.354/2015.
EXHIBIT P1(A18)	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.01.2016 IN OP(KAT) NO.02/2016.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO ALONG WITH THE ANNEXURES.
EXHIBIT P2 (A-R1(A)	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEASUREMENT SHEET WITH RESPECT TO THE POST OF CIVIL POLICE OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P2 (A-R1(B)	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEASUREMENT SHEET WITH RESPECT TO THE POST OF CIVIL EXCISE OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.09.2019 IN O.A.(E) NO.1411 OF 2019.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE RE-MEASUREMENT SHEET.
EXHIBIT P-5	TRUE COPY OF THE RE-MEASUREMENT OF THE CANDIDATE WAS TAKEN BY THE BOARD AND MEASUREMENT SHEET.
EXHIBIT P-6	TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT

¶62

OP(KAT).No.513 OF 2019

¶63

¶64

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶65

EXHIBIT R1 TRUE COPY OF THE PHYSICAL FITNESS CERTIFICATE DATED 21/03/2019 ISSUED BY CONSULTANT, GENERAL HOSPITAL, THRISSUR.

¶66

EXHIBIT R2 TRUE COPY OF PHYSICAL FITNESS CERTIFICATE DATED 23/03/2019 ISSUED BY ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL MEDICINE, GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE, THRISSUR.

Kerala Public Service Commission v. Muhammed Shafeer M.M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kerala Public Service Commission v. Muhammed Shafeer M.M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Roshni R Vs Sameer

The Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, Vs Sreenivasan.v.K

Mahesh v.M., Vs State of Kerala

The Union of India Vs P.Venu

P.Venu Vs Union of India

The General Manager Vs a.Shanmughan