Kerala High Court
Reveendran T vs The Kerala State Electricity Board on 20 April, 2011
Author: C.T. Ravikumar
Bench: C.T.Ravikumar
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. 25341 of 2013 (P)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
------------------
REVEENDRAN T.
MIYALIL HOUSE, MIDAYIKUNNAM P.O, THALAYOLAPARAMBU
KOTTAYAM 686 605
BY ADVS.SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
SRI.T.G.SUNIL (PRANAVAM)
SRI.K.R.GANESH
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------------
1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
2. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
3. THE DISTRICT OFFICER,
THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
DISTRICT OFFICE, KOTTAYAM
R2 & 3 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
R1 BY SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-10-2013,
ALONG WITH WPC. 25398/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 25341 of 2013 (P)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :
-------------------------------
EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 20-04-2011 UPLOADED BY THE
PETITIONER.
EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF CASTE CERTIFICATE DATED 23-05-2013 ISSUED BY THE
VILLAGE OFFICER, VAGAMON TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF THE SHORT LIST PUBLISHED IN THE
MALAYALAM PUBLICATION 'THOZHILVEEDHI' DATED 27-04-2013.
EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF MEMO DATED 4-5-2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 13-06-13 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL
-----------------------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.A.TO JUDGE
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
==========================
W.P.(C). Nos. 25341 & 25398 OF 2013
==========================
Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2013
JUDGMENT
The petitioners in the captioned writ petitions responded to Ext.P1 notification dated 31.3.2011, marked as such in the latter writ petition, issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission (for short 'PSC') inviting applications for appointment to the post of Mazdoor (Electricity Worker) in the Kerala State Electricity Board (for short 'KSEB'). As part of the selection process, an OMR test was conducted on 12.11.2011 and the petitioners appeared in the said test. The petitioners were included in the subsequently published short list dated 17.4.2013. Later, as part of the selection process, candidates included in the short list including the petitioners were called upon to present for the certificate verification, physical measurement and subject to its outcome to attend Physical Efficiency Test, on different W.P.(C).25341 & 25398/13 2 dates. On account of different reasons, they could not appear on the appointed dates. The contention of the petitioner in the former writ petition is that he was working as salesman in a shop at Muscat in the Sultanate of Oman and since his passport and official records were detained by the Directorate of Public Prosecution, Muscat in connection with a raid in the shop he could not attend the physical efficiency test that was conducted on 24.5.2013. It is his further contention that those facts were brought to the notice of the PSC by his wife and subsequently, on his arrival, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 representation before the second respondent requesting for an opportunity to appear for the Physical Efficiency Test. The contention of the petitioner in the latter writ petition is that the petitioner was incapacitated to attend the physical efficiency test as he had suffered a motor vehicle accident on 24.5.2013. He submitted Ext.P4 representation before the fourth respondent along with medical certificates. In short, the contention of the petitioners in both the writ petitions is that it was not on account of any willful laches or lapses or any fault on their part that they could not attend the Physical W.P.(C).25341 & 25398/13 3 Efficiency Test.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned standing counsel appearing for the KSEB and the learned standing counsel appearing for the PSC. The learned standing counsel appearing for the PSC submitted that the reasons assigned by the petitioners cannot be taken as a sufficient ground for compelling the PSC to conduct fresh physical efficiency test as the selection process ultimately culminated in the preparation and publication of the ranked list. It is further submitted that taking into account the said fact, this Court already dismissed W.P.(C).No.21110 of 2013 filed by similarly situated persons. That apart, the learned standing counsel brought to my notice another decision of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.27 of 2013. That was a case wherein the first respondent/petitioner in W.P.(C).No.11680 of 2012 was an applicant to the post of Reserve Driver. As part of the selection process, PSC conducted a practical test consisted of 'H' test and 'Road' Test. The first respondent therein could not participate in the road test on W.P.(C).25341 & 25398/13 4 account of the fact that he sustained serious injuries in a road accident. He approached this Court for a direction to the PSC to subject him to road test. The learned Judge passed an interim order in the said writ petition to allow the petitioner to attend the road test. W.A.No.27 of 2013 was filed against the said interim order passed by the learned Single Judge. While allowing the appeal it was held thus:-
"5. We have gone through the judgment of the learned Single Judge. No doubt, 1st respondent-writ petitioner was not at fault so far as his inability to attend the examination on the last date prescribed by the PSC, 30.04.2012. There could be many situations why a particular candidate was unable to attend the prescribed test like, due to nonavailability of transportation, break down of vehicle, illness in the family or the illness of the candidate etc. But these are all unforeseen happenings beyond the control of anyone. Because of the said problems of the individual candidates, if Commission is directed to conduct fresh tests, they would not be able to complete even one selection process as candidates would stand in a queue for such fresh tests with one reason or the other. It may lead to unwanted and unholy exercise also."
3. It is thus obvious that the Division Bench held that there could be various situations which might prevent or incapacitate a candidate to attend the prescribed test. But those unfortunate W.P.(C).25341 & 25398/13 5 happenings are beyond the control of anyone. Nonetheless, such individual problems are insufficient to direct the PSC to conduct fresh test as any such directions would disable the PSC to complete the selection process within the specified time and it may also lead to unwanted and unholy exercise as well. This Court had earlier considered W.P.(C).No.21110 of 2013 carrying similar grievances under similar circumstances. After considering the entire issues and taking into account the said decision by the Division Bench, this Court dismissed that petition. Taking note of the fact that the selection process initiated pursuant to the notification in question had already culminated in publication of the ranked list, I am of the considered view that the petitioners are not entitled to succeed in these writ petitions. These writ petitions are liable to fail and accordingly, they are dismissed.
Sd/-
C.T. RAVIKUMAR
(JUDGE)
spc/
W.P.(C).25341 & 25398/13 6
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
W.P.(C).25341 & 25398/13 7
JUDGMENT
September,2010