Allowed

Surya S., v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Apr 2024OP(KAT)/362/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Kerala Public Service Commission to re-measure the petitioner's height for the post of Beat Forest Officer. Due to inconsistent measurements across previous tests, the Court ordered a fresh measurement and inclusion in the ranked list if the required height is confirmed.

What did the court decide?

Directed PSC to conduct remeasurement of petitioner's height within one month; if she meets the required height, ensure her inclusion in the ranked list at the appropriate position based on merit.

Surya S., Vs the State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1946

¶7

OP(KAT) NO. 362 OF 2021

¶8

ORDER DATED 29.09.2021 IN OA NO.438 OF 2020 OF KERALA

¶9

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶10

PETITIONER/APPLICANT IN OA:

¶11

SURYA S., AGED 35 YEARS, W/O. MANU M., CHAITHRAM, VILAKKUPPARA P. O., ANCHAL, KOLLAM, KERALA - 691312.

¶12

BY ADVS. P.NANDAKUMAR AMRUTHA SANJEEV VIVEK VIJAYAKUMAR SHEMA ELIZABETH SCARIA

¶13

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN OA:

¶14

1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOREST AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

¶15

2 THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, PALACE P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695004.

¶16

3 THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689645.

¶17

BY ADV P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC

¶18

THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.03.2024, THE COURT ON 04.04.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

..2..

OP(KAT) No.362/2021

JUDGMENT

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.

¶23

The applicant before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal is before this Court challenging Ext.P1 order of the tribunal dated 29.09.2021 in OA No.438 of 2020.

¶24

The original petitioner is a candidate, who participated in the selection process conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) for the post of Beat Forest Officer in the Forest and Wildlife Department in Pathanamthitta District. As per Annex.A1 notification dated 29.12.2017, the required minimum height for female candidates for applying to the post is 157 cm. On physical verification, she was having all requisite physical standards except the required minimum height of 157 cm and hence, she was expelled from the selection process. Challenging the same, the petitioner approached the tribunal with the original application. The tribunal, after consideration of the entire issue, dismissed the original application stating that the PSC being the competent authority to conduct the selection, was

¶25

..3..

¶26

OP(KAT) No.362/2021

¶27

empowered to devise the procedure for holding the selection and that the petitioner could not satisfy the physical standards for the post, as required in the notification. It was further observed that on re-measurement conducted by the Appellate Board also, she does not have the required height. Hence, this original petition.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Annex.A1 notification, the required minimum height for female candidates to apply for the post is 157 cm. It is pointed out that the petitioner qualified all other requirements during the Physical Efficiency Test, however, the height of the petitioner was measured as 156 cm. Thereafter, she filed an appeal and on re-measurement, her height was measured as 156.5 cm. It is the submission of the learned counsel that in another Physical Efficiency Test conducted by the PSC in the year 2013 for the post of Reserve Conductor in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, the height of the petitioner was measured as 158 cm, who was included in the ranked list. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner is having the minimum required height and the removal of the petitioner from the ranked list is not justifiable.

¶29

OP(KAT) No.362/2021

¶30

..4..

¶31

Learned Standing Counsel for the PSC submitted that on measurement, the height of the petitioner was recorded as 156 cm, which is 1 cm short of the required height, and accordingly, she was found unfit by the Selection Board. On appeal, she was provisionally admitted to the Physical Efficiency Test subject to re-measurement. However, on re-measurement, her height was recorded as 156.5 cm. Learned Standing Counsel pointed out that physical measurement is taken by a Board with Under Secretary/Deputy Secretary of KPSC as the Board Chairman; and the Board includes a Lecturer/Professor of Collegiate Education Department as member; and further, standardized equipments are used for physical measurement, which is taken with utmost care. It is further submitted that remeasurement was taken by a Board headed by a Member of the PSC as the Board Chairman. According to the learned Standing Counsel, as far as re-measurement is concerned, the decision of the Board comprising the Member of PSC as Chairman is final and it is on the basis of the rules or procedure prescribed by the PSC that the selection process is conducted. Since each selection is finalized following due

¶32

..5..

¶33

OP(KAT) No.362/2021

¶34

procedure, the result, if any, of the previous selections, cannot be taken into account and the petitioner was removed from the ranked list as she is not having the required height of 157 cm.

¶35

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for PSC and learned Government Pleader.

¶36

We are surprised how the height varies on remeasurement when height is a mandatory condition in the selection process conducted by the PSC. According to the PSC, they are following standardized procedures using standardized equipment for physical measurement and utmost care is given while taking measurements. The required height for the post, as notified, was 157 cm for female candidates. Here, in the case of the petitioner, on initial measurement, her height was recorded as 156 cm. On appeal, when remeasurement was done by a Board headed by a Member, KPSC, as Board Chairman, the height of the petitioner is found to be 156.5 cm. That means, she fell short of 0.5 cm from the required height of 157 cm.

¶37

It is an admitted case that the height of the petitioner was measured at 158 cm in another selection

¶38

OP(KAT) No.362/2021

¶39

..6..

¶40

process conducted by the PSC in the year 2013 for appointment to the post of Reserve Conductor in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. The petitioner is presently aged 35 years. The original physical measurement and Physical Efficiency Test in the present case were conducted during the year 2019. The original physical measurement was taken on 23.12.2019, which was recorded as 156 cm. On remeasurement taken on 09.01.2020 at the KPSC Head Office, Thiruvananthapuram, her height was recorded as 156.5 cm. In respect of another notification, the height of the petitioner was measured by the PSC as 158 cm in 2013. It is the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for PSC that height of individuals may vary by the difference in age, however, the PSC could not produce any material to substantiate the said contention. It is the PSC itself that took physical measurements of the petitioner in 2013, 2019 and 2020, on which different measurements were obtained. Hence, it has to be presumed that the measurements taken by the PSC are not accurate. When height is a mandatory condition even after qualifying five of the nine events in the Physical Efficiency Test, the height measured during relevant

¶41

OP(KAT) No.362/2021

¶42

..7..

¶43

times should be accurate. The female candidates have to qualify five events out of the nine events specified in the notification, which, admittedly, were qualified by the petitioner. The events that female candidates must qualify as per Annex.A1 notification are as under;

¶44

Sl. No.	Events	One Star Standards
1	100 Meters Run	17 Seconds
2	High Jump	106 cm
3	Long Jump	305 cm
4	Putting the Shot (4000 grams)	400 cm
5	200 Metre Run	36 Seconds
6	Throwing the throw ball	1400 cm
7	Shuttle Race (4 x 25 cm)	26 seconds
8	Pull Ups or chinning	8 times
9	Skipping (One minute)	80 times

¶45

The PSC has no explanation for the inconsistency in the measurements taken by them. Though it is contended by the PSC that they are using standardized equipment for taking measurements, we cannot ignore the slight differences in measurements. The height of the candidate being a

¶46

..8..

¶47

OP(KAT) No.362/2021

¶48

relevant criteria for qualifying the physical standards, the PSC is required to take utmost care and due diligence while taking measurements. A government job is a dream for all aspirants. They shall be ensured that the procedure followed by PSC is foolproof.

¶49

In this advanced stage of technology, the PSC shall dwell into more standardized procedures in order to curb the anxiety of the candidates appearing for the physical measurement test and they must convince the candidates of the procedure and method, by which the height is measured. We have seen several instances where there is inconsistency in the measurement and re-measurement taken by the PSC through the Board. Inconsistency in height measurement for qualifying a test can lead to unfair violations. It is crucial to ensure that standardized procedures are followed to maintain accuracy and fairness in assessments. This procedure should involve high tech equipments and trained personnel so as to avoid errors and discrepancies.

¶50

Similar issue was considered by us in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Akhil E.K. & Others [2024 KHC 215], wherein the PSC challenged the decision of the tribunal,

¶51

..9..

¶52

OP(KAT) No.362/2021

¶53

directing the PSC to cause re-measurement of height of the candidates. This Court declined interference, holding that there is inconsistency in the height measurement taken by the PSC in respect of the candidates. Though the said judgment was taken in appeal before the apex court, it has become final.

¶54

Hence, on a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into account the negligible difference from the height required for the post and the inconsistency in the height measurement taken by the PSC at relevant times in respect of the petitioner, we are of the view that the PSC can be directed to conduct a remeasurement of the height of the petitioner.

¶55

Accordingly, the original petition is disposed of, as follows;

¶56

A. There shall be a direction to the PSC to conduct a remeasurement of the height of the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. It is open to the PSC to seek assistance from an Assistant Surgeon, if necessary.

¶57

B. On re-measurement as above, if it is found that the petitioner is having the required height, she shall be

¶58

OP(KAT) No.362/2021

¶59

..10..

¶60

included in the ranked list at the appropriate position on the basis of her merit, without any further delay.

SD/-

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

JUDGE

SD/-

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

JUDGE

bka/-

OP(KAT) No.362/2021

..11..

APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 362/2021

¶71

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶72

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 29.09.2021 IN OA NO.438 OF 2021 ON THE FILE OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF ORIGINAL APPLICATION ALONG WITH ANNEXURES.
ANNEXURE A1	TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION ISSUED UNDER CATEGORY NO.582/2017 OF THE KPSC.
ANNEXURE A2	TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES SHORT LIST NO.02/2019/DOH DATED 06.02.2019 UNDER CATEGORY NO.582/2017 PUBLISHED BY THE KPSC.
ANNEXURE A3	TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF THE RANKED LIST NO.210/ERIX/13/EW DATED 09.05.2013 UNDER CATEGORY NO.467/2010 PUBLISHED BY THE KPSC.
ANNEXURE A4	TRUE COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE NO.319/2020 DATED 24.02.2020 ISSUED BY DR. SHAMEER SALAM, ASSISTANT SURGEON, COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE, ANCHAL, KOLLAM.
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT DATED 19.11.2020 FILED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2.
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED
	31.12.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
	RESPONDENT FOR THE POST OF RESERVE CONDUCTOR IN KSRTC.

¶73

OP(KAT) No.362/2021

¶74

..12..

¶75

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF RANKED LIST DATED 17.03.2020 FOR THE POST OF BEAT FOREST OFFICER IN THE FOREST AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT.

Surya S., v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surya S., v. the State of Kerala

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

George P. Cherukoth, Vs State of Kerala

George P.Chrukoth Vs State of Kerala

George P.Cherukoth, Vs State of Kerala

Davis.M.C Vs Harris

Anitha.P.B. Vs Mohammed Hanish IAS

The Kerala Public Service Commission Vs Safeera M.K.