Kerala High Court
Ajith Thazhathel vs State Of Kerala on 1 February, 2011
Author: C.K.Abdul Rehim
Bench: C.K.Abdul Rehim
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAYOF JANUARY 2014/4TH MAGHA, 1935
WP(C).No. 4372 of 2013 (V)
---------------------------
PETITIONER:
------------------
1. AJITH THAZHATHEL,
AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. APPUTTY.T,
THAZHATHEL HOUSE, PURANGU.P.O.
MALAPPURAM, PIN-679 584.
2. DINESAN.V.
AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRAN. V,
VAROT HOUSE, ERAMANGALAM.P.O.
MALAPPURAM, PIN-679 587.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.J.SAJI ISAAC
DR.ELIZABETH VARKEY
RESPONDENTS:
-----------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001.
2. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.A. ABDUL SHUKOOR
R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-01-
2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
AMG
W.P (c) No.4372/2013
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS
P1- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 01.02.2011.
P2- TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDIZATION
OF MARKS.
P3- TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT LIST PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
NIL
True copy
P.A. To Judge
AMG
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.
-------------------------------------------------
W.P.(c) No. 4372 OF 2013-V
-------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF JANUARY, 2014.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners are candidates applied to the post of 'Reserve Conductors' in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC), on the basis of Ext.P1 notification issued by the 2nd respondent. The petitioners are now seeking direction to restrain the publication of Rank List of selected candidates, relying on Ext.P2 report of the 'Committee of the Statisticians' with respect to the process of standarisation (normalisation) done regarding the written test conducted at various phases.
2. Facts enumerated is that there were about 6.03 lakhs of candidates applied for the post. More than 6 lakhs candidates were found qualified for the OMR test conducted. The OMR tests for different Districts were conducted on different dates, at 3 phases on 12-05-2012, 25-05-2012 and 09-06-2012. Contention of the petitioners is W.P.(c) No.4372/2013 -2- that a single probability list prepared on the basis of the written test at 3 phases conducted based on 3 different set of question papers, cannot be sustained. It is pointed out that, the percentage of successful candidate included in the probability list with respect to the 1st phase of examination was comparatively too low with the percentage of candidates successful in the other two phases. According to the petitioners the 2nd respondent ought to have fixed different cut-off marks for different set of question papers and ought to have prepared separate probability lists for ensuring parity in merit and to ensure that all deserving candidates get pass in the written test based on their merit.
3. It is pertinent to note that, certain candidates who appeared for written examination have filed writ petitions before this court challenging the method adopted with respect to conduct of the written examination at various regions. In those writ petitions it was contended that preparation of common rank list on the basis of different set of question papers used for the conduct of examination at W.P.(c) No.4372/2013 -3- different phases, cannot be justified. The relief sought for was to declare the examination conducted as unsustainable. While dealing with those writ petitions, W.P (c) Nos.18166 & 20394/2012, this court had taken note of the contentions raised by the 2nd respondent that it was not possible to conduct the examination at a stretch relying on the infrastructure facility available at different schools and colleges and on the sufficiency of the number of staff deputed as Invigilators for conduct of the examinations. The 2nd respondent took a contention that, what is important is not the similarity of the question papers, but the standard of the questions. It was contended that the questions were prepared only within the subjects which are included in the syllabus published and therefore non-keeping of uniformity in the matter of questions has no relevance. The 2nd respondent submitted that they have already taken a decision to standardise the examinations conducted at different phases, with the help of expert statisticians, inorder to ensure uniformity in the selection process W.P.(c) No.4372/2013 -4- depending on the performance of the candidates. The petitioners in the above writ petitions raised a contention that the Public Service Commission cannot be permitted to adopt any such method of standardisation, without disclosing the exact criteria and method by which the standardisation will be done. But in the common judgment rendered by this court on 08-10-2012 this court observed that the petitioners have no case that any one of the question in the different set of question papers is out of syllabus and there is any difference in the total number of marks alloted to different written tests. Therefore the challenge was repelled and the request of the petitioners therein to compel the 2nd respondent to publish the method of standardisation was also declined, observing that the conduct of test or interview and preparation of list of eligible candidates are matters which are fully left to the decision of the Public Service Commission. However, it was observed that if the 2nd respondent is adopting any criteria which is not legitimate or which is arbitrary, it will be left W.P.(c) No.4372/2013 -5- open to the candidates to challenge the selection process.
4. It is stated in this writ petition that the Public Service Commission had adopted a standarisation process with respect to the examination conducted at 3 different phases. Exhibit P2 is the report of the standarisation committee constituted by the 2nd respondent in this regard. It is indicated in Ext.P2 that, the committee had decided to compute "index of difficulty" of each question in each set of question papers, taking the criteria as the proportion of correct answers obtained for each such questions, i.e., the number of correct answers obtained to each such questions divided by the total number of candidates who wrote the examination with the particular set of questions. It is evident that the statisticians have adopted such method by referring to certain norms which are internationally accepted. It is also evident from Ext.P2 that the committee had conceded that all the criteria adopted and the procedure followed can only be done under the assumption that there is no regional variations in the capability of the W.P.(c) No.4372/2013 -6- candidates. In the present writ petition the petitioners are challenging the findings contained in Ext.P2 by assailing the yardsticks adopted. According to the petitioners the method followed for fixing the 'index of difference' based on the number of correct answers for each question is not proper and genuine. It is contended that the there can be many correct answers which have been obtained by guess work. So also the standardisation done on the assumption that there is no regional variation in the capabilities of the candidates, is not true and correct. Many candidates appeared for the examination belongs to places which are educationally backward. According to the petitioner there are regional disabilities in the capabilities of the candidates in different parts of the State and the method adopted is totally erroneous.
5. Conduct of written examinations for different Districts at different phases cannot be held as unjustifiable or unsustainable, in view of the factual situation enumerated. It is also not objectionable as to introduction of W.P.(c) No.4372/2013 -7- different set of question papers for conduct of examinations at different phases on different dates. The 2nd respondent cannot be compelled to prepare separate Rank List/probability list on the basis of examination conducted at different phases, because of the fact that the selection is on statewide basis and it is on the basis of a single notification. Hence this court is not in a position to declare that the decision taken by the 2nd respondent for a standardisation (normalisation) of the results by constituting a committee of expert statisticians is invalid or in any manner violating the selection process.
6. Question remains as to whether this court can look into the aspect on the basis or criteria upon which the standarisation has been done by the experts. True that Ext.P2 report concede that the standardisation is made on the assumption that there is no regional variation in the capability of candidates. As contended by the petitioner, such an assumption may not be totally accurate or perfect. But in a standarisation process like this, the statisticians W.P.(c) No.4372/2013 -8- have to adopt accepted criterias and methodologies. Can such criteria adopted in the process of standardisation be open to challenge in a writ petition filed before this court, invoking powers under Article 226, is the question mooted. As already observed in the earlier judgment, this court is not supposed to interfere in the selection process at each and every minute level, unless patent error or total arbitrariness is writ at large on the face of the process itself. The task of selection of candidates for public appointment and adoption of the method of selection are matters largely left to discretion of the 2nd respondent, which is a constitutional functionary bestowed with powers. Even if there is no total accuracy or perfectness achieved by the criteria adopted at any stage of the process of selection, interference by this court is not warranted, unless it is illustrated through convincing materials that merit of any candidate has been overlooked or that any ineligible candidate has been selected through the process. This court is not supposed to make an interference in the selection W.P.(c) No.4372/2013 -9- process merely because of the fact that on the basis of probabilities and assumptions there might have occurred relative or probable misappropriation of merits of the candidates who appeared in the written test at different phases.
7. For the reasons mentioned as above, this court is of the considered opinion that the interference in the selection process is not at all warranted on the basis of grounds of challenges raised.
8. Resultantly, the writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE AMG True copy P.A. to Judge