IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 10062 of 2010(G)
1. M.R.SASI, S/O.M.S.RAMAN, AGED 48
... Petitioner
2. SAIFUDHEEN, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN AGED 29
3. SIVADHATHAN.K.P., S/O.K.AMBADI, AGED
4. RAJEEV, S/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 29
5. ANOOP SANKARA PILLAI,
6. RAPPAI, S/O.PAILOTH, AGED 50 YEARS,
7. PRADEEPKUMAR.S., S/O.SREEDHARAN NAIR,
8. SANTHOSH KUMAR.R.,
9. VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O.PALAYYAN, AGED 31
10. PRAMOD M., S/O.P.KRISHNAN, AGED 37 YEARS
Vs
1. KERALA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY,
... Respondent
2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :07/04/2010
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)No.10062 of 2010
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 7th day of April, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners are tractor drivers and Class IV
employees in the 1st respondent University. The university
invited applications for appointment to the post of drivers in
the University. 50% of the vacancies were reserved for
appointment from among qualified drivers of the University.
Petitioners also applied. The selection process consists of 3
stages, viz. (1) practical test (2) vehicle trouble shooting
and maintenance and (3) interview. The petitioners
participate in the practical test. The petitioners are not
been allowed to participate in the other two stages of the
selection process. Petitioners are aggrieved by the same.
According to the petitioners they are entitled to fully
participate in the entire selection process in so far as there
is no other disqualification in them. The petitioners contend
that the petitioners are actually engaged for driving
W.P.(C)No.10062 of 2010
-2-
vehicles of the University and therefore it cannot be said
that they are not fit enough to drive the vehicles.
I have heard the standing counsel for the University
also. The mere fact that the petitioners were allowed to
drive vehicles of the university does not ipso facto make
them good drivers. In any selection process there would be
a screening test among the applicants to be selected. The
self estimation of the capability of the petitioners cannot be
a criterion for deciding as to whether they are fit to be
appointed as drivers or not. The petitioners could not prove
any malafides against the University in excluding them after
the practical test. They are also not able to satisfy me that
the others who are selected are inferior to them. With such
materials I do not think that I can interfere with the
elimination of the petitioners from the selection process. In
the above circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed.
S. SIRI JAGAN
JUDGE
shg/