Kerala High Court
Sajeesh C.K vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 30 May, 2017
Author: V Shircy
Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon, V Shircy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2017/15TH PHALGUNA, 1927
OP(KAT).No. 300 of 2017 (Z)
----------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA(EKM) 840/2016 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 30-05-2017
PETITIONERS/APPLICANTS IN THE O.A.:
------------------------------------
1. SAJEESH C.K.
AGED 36 YEARS, S/O C.K.BALAN,
CHOORAKATTUKUZHIYIL HOUSE,
AMBALAVAYAL P.O., WAYANAD-673593.
2. VIPIN T D,
AGED 34 YEARS, S/O BABY,
THARAPPEL HOUSE, VIMALANAGAR,
P.O. MANANDAVADY, WAYANAD-670645.
3. JAISON JOY,
AGED 36 YEARS, S/O JOY,
KUZHUVELIL HOUSE, MUNDAKUTTY,
P.O. MANANDAVADY, WAYANAD-670645.
4. BIJU THOMAS,
AGED 39 YEARS, S/O THOMAS,
EDAMURIYIL HOUSE, PAYYAMPILLY,
P.O.MANANDAVADY, WAYANAD -670645.
5. SAVIN S R,
AGED 33 YEARS, S/O RADHAKRISHNAN,
SWAPNA HOUSE, VIMALANAGAR,
PO MANANDAVADY, WAYANAD-670645.
BY ADVS.SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN
SRI.TERRY V.JAMES
SRI.SHARAN SHAHIER
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN THE O.A.:
--------------------------------------
1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
OP(KAT).No. 300 of 2017 (Z)
2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER,
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
DISTRICT OFFICE, WAYANAD, KALPETTA-673122.
3. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL ADMINISTRATION,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI ANTONY MUKKATH
R1 AND R2 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 22-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
OP(KAT).No. 300 of 2017 (Z)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.NO.840/2016 FILED BY THE
PETITIONERS BEFORE THE K.A.T ERNAKULAM ALONG WITH ANNEXURES.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT DATED 13.1.2015 FILED BY
THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENT IN O.A NO.840/2016.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF DRIVING SKILL APPRAISAL FORMS OF THE
PETITIONERS PRODUCED ALONG WITH LETTER DATED 21.2.2017 BY THE 1ST AND
2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF REJOINDER DATED 3.3.2017 FILED BY THE
PETITIONERS IN O.A.NO.840/2016.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.5.2017 IN O.A.(EKM)
NO.840/2016 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL
-----------------------
/TRUE COPY/
P.S. TO JUDGE.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON
&
SHIRCY V, JJ.
..............................................................................
O.P.(KAT) No.300 OF 2017
.........................................................................
Dated this the 22nd August , 2017
J U D G M E N T
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.
Petitioners, who lost the battle to get an entry for appointment to the post of Driver in the process of selection done by the PSC are before this Court, challenging dismissal of the O.A. as per Ext.P5 order .
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners points out that the applicants were desirous of getting employment to the post of Driver Grade II (LDV) in various departments in Wayanad District. They applied for the post in question, pursuant to the notification issued by the PSC. They came out successful in the 'OMR' test, pursuant to which 'H' test was conducted, which was also cleared by them. However, coming to the 'Road Test', they were stated as not successful and hence they were never called for the verification of documents, which made them to approach the Tribunal with the following prayers:
"i) Call for the records leading to the practical test of O.P.(KAT) No.300 OF 2017 2 Drivers Grade-II as per Annexure A1 and A2 and examine the same and
ii) issue appropriate direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents to include the name of the applicants in the list of successful candidates in the practical test duly awarding grade marks;
iii) issue appropriate direction directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to conduct practical test by examiners other than the examiners who conducted road test as per Annexure A2 and other identical call letters.
iv) to grant such other reliefs that this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, proper in the circumstances of the case."
3. It was contended before the Tribunal that there was absolutely no chance for the petitioners to have failed in the 'Road Test', as all of them were driving the vehicles for several years and had attained sufficient skill rather than anybodyelse.
4. The claim was resisted from the part of the PSC pointing out that the test was conducted by a Body consisting of experts deployed by the PSC and that several traits had to be analysed and appreciated , giving appropriate marks under each head. The selection process was stated as a transparent one and passing of the 'Road Test' was also very much essential to have the process O.P.(KAT) No.300 OF 2017 3 cleared, where the petitioners failed. After considering the facts and figures, the Tribunal declined interference and passed Ext.P5 order dismissing the O.A., which is within the four walls of law and not assailable, according to the PSC. It is also pointed out that the similar factual position and the relevant provisions of law have been considered by another Bench of this Court in Bineesh vs. Kerala Public Service Commission [2014 (4)KLT 921], which stands against the petitioners.
5. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioners have cleared the 'OMR' Test also the 'H' test. There is also no dispute with regard to the fact that they had to clear the 'Road Test' as well. The only question is whether they had actually cleared the 'Road Test' or not. On going through the contents of the documents particularly the score sheet, forming part of Ext.P3, it is seen that the petitioners have obtained 'minus marks' in respect of some of the traits (forming part of 11 different traits) to be assessed in the course of the test. It is also not disputed that a candidate who obtained minus mark in respect of any of the traits against items 3 to 11, will not be getting an entry to O.P.(KAT) No.300 OF 2017 4 advance further and that he will stand weeded out. In so far as there is no dispute for the petitioners that they have obtained 'minus marks' in some of the traits as above and since the specific plea raised by the PSC as to the scope and the outcome of the 'Road Test' are not disputed and further since the petitioners had not chosen to amend the O.A., in any manner, they cannot be heard to say that they should be declared as passed or should be given a further chance to compete, after conducting a fresh 'Road Test'. We find that the approach made by the Tribunal cannot be said as defective in any manner. This is not a fit case where interference is to be made, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Interference is declined and the Original Petition is dismissed.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE SHIRCY V, JUDGE lk