IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 27174 of 2006(I)
1. ANILKUMAR N.S., S/O.SEKHARAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
3. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.PAULOCHAN ANTONY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN
Dated :15/12/2006
O R D E R
K.K.DENESAN, J.
-----------------------------
WP(C)No. 27174 OF 2006
-----------------------------
Dated this the 15th December, 2006.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner applied for the post of Assistant
Engineer (Electrical) in the Kerala State Electricity Board
pursuant to notification issued by the third respondent. A
written test was conducted by the Commission. The
petitioner appeared for the written test. Short listing of
candidates was done and the list was published on 5.7.2005
(Ext.P3). The main list contains 96 candidates and the
supplementary list 126 candidates. Thereafter the
candidates included in the short list were called for
interview. The Commission published the final rank list on
13.1.2006. The petitioner was not included in the short
list, and consequently, his name did not appear in the rank
list also. He filed this writ petition on 12.10.2006
contending that the Commission had committed illegality in
fixing a cut off mark for preparing the short list as also
for the final rank list.
2. Reliefs prayed for in this writ petition are: (i)
to quash Ext.P3 notification issued by the third
respondent, (ii) for a direction to the third respondent
Commission to consider the existing and the anticipated
vacancies in the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical)
WPC 27174/2006 2
and to prepare a list in the order of merit without fixing
cut off marks, (iii) for a direction to the Commission to
advice candidates only on the basis of an additional list
to be prepared and (iv) for a declaration that the fixing
of cut off marks at 50 as per Ext.P3 is illegal and
arbitrary.
3. The third respondent Commission has filed a counter
affidavit. In paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit the
allegation that cut off mark was fixed in contravention of
the settled principles of law has been denied. According
to the Commission the cut off marks referred to in Ext.P3
is the marks scored by the candidate who was included as
the last person in the list. It is not as though the
Commission fixed a cut off mark and thereafter prepared a
short list. The Commission had to take into account the
number of vacancies till then reported and to assess the
reasonable number of persons to be included in the short
list. This was done taking into account the number of
candidates applied, the number of vacancies reported and
the number of persons to be called for interview. It is
further submitted that the petitioner whose register number
was not included in Ext.P3 short list published on 5.7.2005
did not choose to challenge the same within a reasonable
time. Subsequently the main list was published on
WPC 27174/2006 3
13.1.2006. The final rank list also was not challenged
within a reasonable time. He has chosen to approach this
Court after the lapse of ten months from the date of
publication of the final rank list. In the meantime the
Commission had started advising candidates from the list.
The present position is that the main list has exhausted.
In the light of the judgment of the apex Court, the
supplementary list has automatically ceased to be in force.
4. Having considered the rival submissions, I feel
that the petitioner cannot be granted the reliefs prayed
for. It is to be taken note of that the petitioner has not
challenged Ext.P3 short list within a reasonable time.
None included in that list is a party to this writ
petition. No relief can be granted to the petitioner
behind the back of those who were included in Ext.P3. On
that ground alone this writ petition is liable to be
dismissed. I find substance in the contention of the
Commission that the minimum mark of 50 was stipulated not
as a cut off mark but taking into consideration the lowest
mark secured by the candidate who was included in the short
list having regard to the number of vacancies reported and
the number of persons who can be called for interview. The
fact that the petitioner did not challenge the impugned
action or the final rank list within a reasonable time is
WPC 27174/2006 4
also a significant point in favour of the respondents. In
matters of this nature where intervening rights of others
who have applied for the same post are involved, any person
who sleeps over his right and thinks that he can challenge
the action whenever he wants to do so according to his
whims and fancies will not be granted reliefs by this Court
in the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction under
Art.226 of the Constitution of India. For the above
reasons, the writ petition must fail. Hence it is
dismissed.
K.K.DENESAN
Judge
jj