IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 2128 of 2009()
1. ABDULRAHMAN.T.M.,AGED 21 YEARS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT OFFICER
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :30/10/2009
O R D E R
KURIAN JOSEPH & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
---------------------------------------------
W.A. NO. 2128 OF 2009
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of October, 2009
JUDGMENT
Ravikumar, J.
The appellant was the petitioner. He was an applicant for
appointment to the post of Police Constable in the Armed Police Battalion
in Ernakulam District. In connection with the selection process, he was
called upon to appear for the physical efficiency test on 18.5.2009. In
order to earn a place in the list of qualified candidates in the physical
efficiency test, one has to qualify in five items out of eight. According to
the respondent, the petitioner, though participated in all the eight items,
had cleared only in four items, namely 100 metres run, High Jump, Long
Jump and Pull up. But, according to the petitioner, besides clearing the
aforesaid items, he had cleared the minimum qualifying distance in ‘Shot
put’in his third attempt. It is his case that after clearing the said
minimum qualifying distance, he fell down due to muscle pull and
consequently he was declared as failed in respect of the said event. This,
W.A.NO. 2128/2009 2
according to the appellant, is illegal and, therefore, he sought for issuance
of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to consider Ext.P2, his
representation dated 25.5.2009, requesting for granting another chance to
participate in the said item, rather putting the shot, and to consider his
performance afresh for selection to the post of Police Constable.
2. The respondent herein has filed a counter affidavit and an
additional counter affidavit in the Writ Petition refuting the claims and
contentions of the appellant. According to the respondent, the appellant
had participated in all the eight items, but had cleared only in the aforesaid
four items. As regards ‘shot put’ he had failed to qualify in all his three
attempts. It was after considering the contentions and on perusing the
original of the result sheet that the learned Single Judge arrived at the
conclusion that the case of the appellant/petitioner that he had qualified in
the item “shot put” is unbelievable and accordingly dismissed the Writ
Petition. This appeal is preferred against the said judgment.
3. Both parties have reiterated their contentions which were raised
before the learned Single Judge. As noticed hereinbefore, the contention
of the appellant is that he had cleared the minimum qualifying distance in
respect of the item “shot put” and he fell down only thereafter and,
W.A.NO. 2128/2009 3
therefore, there was no reason to disqualify him, rather to declare him as
failed, in respect of that item. The specific contention of the respondent is
that the appellant had failed to qualify in the said item. In the context of
the rival contentions, Ext.P2 itself assumes relevance. There was no
immediate response on the part on the appellant after his disqualification.
He had submitted Ext.P2 representation only on 25.5.2009. His own
version of the incident in Ext.P2 is as follows:
“In all the above items I participated and
got myself declared pass in 100 mtr.runs, high
jump, long jump, pull up. In putting the shot
though I crossed the mark, due to muscle pull, I
got fell down in the line and the result declared as
passed was further declared as foul.”
(emphasis supplied)
4. Thus, going by the very version of the incident, admittedly,
while putting the shot, the appellant had crossed the mark due to muscle
pull. Whatever by the reason, such a throw cannot be styled as a legal
throw and he cannot, therefore, claim that the said attempt should be taken
as a legal one and he should be declared as passed in the said item merely
because he had cleared the minimum qualifying distance. Based on the
very admission on the part of the appellant/petitioner and the way in
which he described the incident, no one can attribute any kind of illegality
W.A.NO. 2128/2009 4
in the action on the part of the respondent in declaring him as failed in that
attempt in respect of the said item. Admittedly, he had failed in respect of
that item in the other two attempts as well. To be a valid throw in ‘shot
put’, the shot putter should not cross the mark in that process. Therefore,
the appellant was only to be declared as failed in respect of the said item
based on his own admission that he had crossed the mark while putting the
shot. That alone was done by the respondent. However, on account of the
persuasive assertion on behalf of the appellant, we had directed for
production of the original result sheet pertaining to the appellant in
connection with the physical efficiency test held on 18.5.2009.
Accordingly, the result sheet was produced. We have carefully perused
the same. The result sheet would reveal that the appellant had failed in
all his three attempts in regard to the item “shot put” and that he had
participated in all the eight items and came out successful only in respect
of four items, namely, 100 metres run, high jump, long jump and pull up.
We are unable to find any kind of irregularity in the original result sheet
produced by the respondent. Therefore, there is no reason to disagree with
the finding of the learned Single Judge that the inconsistent case of the
appellant/petitioner cannot be believed and there is no merit in the case set
out by him.
W.A.NO. 2128/2009 5
The appeal is, therefore, devoid of merits and it is liable to be
dismissed. We do so.
(KURIAN JOSEPH)
JUDGE
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR)
JUDGE
sp/
W.A.NO. 2128/2009 6
KURIAN JOSEPH
&
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
W.A.NO. 2128/2009
JUDGMENT
30th October, 2009