IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 21099 of 2010(J)
1. DR. BIJI.K.B., AGED 37 YEARS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
3. THE NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATIONS
For Petitioner :SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :07/07/2010
O R D E R
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.
---------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 21099 OF 2010
--------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of July, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Pursuant to Ext.P1 notification issued by the first
respondent for selection to the post of Senior Lecturer in Pathology,
the petitioner submitted her application. In the ranked list drawn
pursuant to the said selection, the petitioner has been included at
rank No.22. Later, the first respondent issued Ext.P2 notice dated
26.3.2010 requiring the petitioner to produce the certificate to prove
that she had acquired Diplomate of National Board (DNB) prior to
the last date of receipt of the application. The same was issued
since in Ext.P3, the provisional certificate of passing Diplomate of
National Board, the date of its issuance is shown as 27.9.2010 (sic.
27.1.2010) whilst the last date of receipt of the application was
9.9.2009. In response to Ext.P3, the petitioner has submitted a
reply on 7.4.2010 along with Exts.P4 and P5 as its enclosures.
Ext.P4 is the Course Certificate dated 31.10.2008 and Ext.P5 is the
information down loaded from the Internet, relating to DNB
examination. As per Ext.P6 , the petitioner was informed that the
said documents are unacceptable and she was required to produce
records showing that the date of publication of DNB examination
WPC No.21099/2010
2
was prior to the last date of receipt of the applications viz., 9.9.2009.
For that purpose the petitioner was given 15 days. Ext.P6 is dated
7.5.2010. Subsequently, the petitioner was also served with Ext.P7
show cause notice dated 14.6.2010. As per the same, the petitioner
was informed of the proposal to delete her name from the ranked list
and she was also directed to show cause as to why the said
proposed action should not be taken against her. The petitioner has
shown cause as per Ext.P9 dated 22.6.2010. However, the first
respondent issued Ext.P10 dated 1.7.2010 deleting the name of the
petitioner from the ranked list dated 18.3.2010 prepared for
appointment to the post of Senior Lecturer in Pathology under the
Medical Education Department. It is challenging Ext.P10 that this
writ petition has been filed.
2. The thrust of the contentions of the petitioner is that the
action on the part of the first respondent in deleting her name as per
Ext.P10 is illegal for the reason that the issue involved in the matter
was not properly considered by the first respondent. According to
the petitioner, Ext.P3 the provisional certificate produced by the
petitioner would reveal the fact that she had actually passed the DNB
WPC No.21099/2010
3
examination held in May 2009. That apart, it is the contention of the
petitioner that the respondents should have taken note of Exts.P5(1)
and P5(2). According to the petitioner, they would reveal the fact
that petitioner has passed the DNB examination prior to 9.9.2009.
The further contention is that the date in Ext.P3 is immaterial as the
very certificate would reveal the fact that the petitioner has passed
the examination held in May, 2009.
3. I have heard the learned standing counsel appearing for
the first respondent as well.
4. Ext.P5(1) is the information downloaded on 24.4.2009
regarding DNB Theory and Ext.P5(2) is the downloaded information
dated 29.7.2009 relating the DNB Practical. In Ext.P5(1) it has been
categorically mentioned as hereunder:-
“PROVISIONAL PASS CERTIFICATE WILL BE ISSUED ONLY AFTER
ACCEPTANCE OF THE THESIS”
In Ext.P5(2) it has been stated thus:-
“RESULT (PASS/FAIL) WILL BE DECLARED ONLY AFTER
ACCEPTANCE OF THESIS.”
5. According to the petitioner, the said statements in
Exts.P5(1) and P5(2) would suggest that the petitioner has actually
WPC No.21099/2010
4
passed the DNB examination. The statements in Exts.P5(1) and P5
(2), as extracted actually go against the petitioner. The extract from
Ext.P5(2) would reveal that the result viz., passed/failed, would be
declared only after acceptance of thesis. Admittedly, the thesis
acceptance certificate was issued only on 16.1.2010 viz., much after
9.9.2009, the last date for acceptance of the applications. Hence,
the contentions raised by the petitioner based on Exts.P5(1) and P5
(2)cannot be upheld.
6. The next contention of the petitioner was based on
Ext.P3 provisional certificate. The relevant portion of Ext.P3 reads
thus:-
“Certified that Dr. BIJI K.B has been declared PASS
in the DNB final examination conducted by the Board
in May, 2009 with Roll No. PATH/82/069 in the
Discipline of PATHOLOGY.”
7. Ext.P3 is dated 27.1.2010. True, as per Ext.P3 the third
respondent certified that the petitioner has actually passed the final
examination conducted by the Board in May 2009 with Roll No.
PATH/82/069 in the discipline of Pathology. In the light of the
aforesaid materials, the petitioner contends that evidently she has
passed the examination in May 2009 and therefore the date in Ext.P3
WPC No.21099/2010
5
is immaterial.
8. It is thus evident that the petitioner was not actually
issued with the provisional pass certificate as on the dates on which
he had downloaded the informations in Exts.P5(1) and P5(2) and the
provisional pass certificate was admittedly issued only as per Ext.P3.
Ext.P3 is dated 27.1.2010. In fact, the same was issued only after
acceptance of the thesis on 16.1.2010, as specifically stated in
Ext.P5(2).Therefore, the fact that the DNB final examination was
conducted in May, 2009 has no relevance. There cannot be any
doubt with respect to the position that in respect of any examination
before declaration of its result nobody could legally claim that he/she
came out successful in the concerned examination. Therefore,
according to me, it is not the date of the examination that is crucial
and what is crucial is the date of declaration of the result of the
concerned examination. In this case, it is true that the petitioner has
appeared in the final DNB examination that was conducted by the
Board in May 2009. But the result of the said examination conducted
in May 2009 was declared provisionally only on 27.1.2010.
Therefore, I cannot find fault with the finding of the first respondent to
WPC No.21099/2010
6
the effect that on the last date of receipt of application i.e., 9.9.2009,
there was no declaration of the result of the petitioner in respect of
her DNB examination and as such, she was ineligible to apply in
response to Ext.P1 notification. The petitioner does not have a case
that the result of the DNB examination was declared prior to
27.1.2010, officially. In view of the facts thus obtained in this case, I
am of the view that there is no reason to interfere with Ext.P10 and to
review Ext.P10 judicially.
There is no merit in this writ petition and accordingly, it is
dismissed.
C.T.RAVIKUMAR
(JUDGE)
vps
WPC No.21099/2010
7
WPC No.21099/2010
8