IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 37133 of 2007(U)
1. PRAMEELA P.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :19/08/2008
O R D E R
V. GIRI, J.
-------------------------------
WP(C).NO.37133 of 2007
---------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of August, 2008
JUDGMENT
The petitioner applied for the post of Confidential Assistant
Grade II in Kasaragod District pursuant to the notification issued
by the Public Service Commission. The selection consists of
written test in the OMR form and a dictation test. The dictation
test was held on 6.10.2007. The format for the dictation test
provided a passage in English consisting of 400 words to be read
in five minutes (80 words per minute). The candidate was to
take down the passage in short hand and then transcribe it in
long hand using ink within one hour. It is the petitioner’s case
that 36 candidates appeared for the dictation test. They were
divided into two batches. The petitioner was included in the
first batch. The dictation for the first batch commenced at 8.00
a.m. and ended at 8.05 a.m. The specific case of the petitioner
is that for about three minutes during the dictation, the municipal
siren was blaring and the candidates were not in a position to
hear properly on account of the siren. The Municipal office
WPC.37133 /2007 2
building is situated nearby in close proximity to the place where
the dictation test was held. Ext.P4 contains the special
instructions given by the Service Commission to the
Superintendents/Shorthand dictators in the matter of conducting
the dictation test. Similar instructions are contained in the Public
Service Commission Manuel as such. The relevant portion of the
same is produced as Ext.P5. Particular reference is made to
clause ‘6’ of Ext.P4, which reads as follows:-
“For the dictation all the candidates in each
batch may be seated together near the
person who gives the dictation in such a
manner so as to ensure that the dictation is
clearly audible to all the candidates. The
passage should be dictated in a loud and
distinct voice once and once only no words
or phrase being repeated. No punctuation
stop being mentioned and no spelling of
any word being given. The passage to be
dictated is marked into portions of one
minute duration and each of those is sub
divided into portions of a quarter minutes
duration. The reader with a watch in hand
( a watch provided with a second hand) will
WPC.37133 /2007 3
be able to notice at each quarter minute
how far he is adhering strictly to the speed.
An oblique line will mark the first. Second
and third quarter minute and two oblique
lines will mark the completion of one
minute. The numerals in the margin will
mark the complete minute. It is important
that the dictation should be uniform. (It is
not enough that the whole passage is
dictated in the time allowed.)”
2. Reference is also made to the provisions contained in
Ext.P5 providing for deduction of marks for mistakes committed
in the dictation test. 1/4th of a mark is deducted for each word
omitted or added. Half mark is deducted for each wrong word.
It is of utmost importance that the candidates are in a position to
hear the passage dictated clearly and without any disturbance.
The Public Service Commission should have ensured that the
dictation test was conducted without any external disturbance.
At any rate having been apprised of the fact that there was an
intrusive disturbance by way of the municipal siren blaring at
close proximity to the place where the dictation test was being
WPC.37133 /2007 4
held, the Commission should have taken steps to conduct a fresh
dictation test atleast for the benefit of the first batch of students
who were subjected to the dictation test from 8.00 a.m. to 8.05
a.m. Ext.P7 complaint was submitted immediately after the test.
Ext.P8 fax report would evidence that the complaint was sent on
the date of dictation test itself. Another complaint was given by
yet another candidate as Exts. P9 and P10. The petitioner
submitted Ext.P11 before the Chairman on 8.10.2007. The writ
petition was filed when it was found that the Public Service
Commission was not willing to conduct a fresh dictation test.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Public Service
Commission. The relevant portion of the said counter affidavit
reads as follows:-
” It is most respectfully submitted that the Public
Service Commission had directed its Secretary, to
conduct an enquiry in this regard. Accordingly the
Secretary conducted an enquiry, obtained
statements of Sri.Karunakaran, the District Officer,
Kerala Public Service Commission, Kasaragod,
Sri.A.Karunakara, Head Master GHSS Kasaragod,
who was the Chief Superintendent, Sri.Ajith
Kumar, Section Officer, Kerala Public Service
WPC.37133 /2007 5
Commission, District Office, Kasaragod, who was
the Additional Chief Superintendent,
Smt.M.Geetha, Confidential Assistant, Collectorate,
Kasaragod, who was appointed as the dictator for
the dictation test held on 6.10.2007 and also the
petitioner and Sri.Madhusoodanan, the petitioner’s
brother. As per the statements of Chief
Superintendent, Additional Chief Superintendent
and the dictator, the blaring of siren lasted only for
about 30 seconds and it was not too loud to give
any trouble to the candidates. More over, at that
time the dictator had read the passage in a very
loud voice so that siren call shall not cause any
disturbance to the candidates to take down the
dictation. The Chief Superintendent at the
examination centre, Sri.Karanakara, GHSS
Kasaragod, had also reported that at the time of
dictation he was present in the hall, behind the
candidates and the dictation was clearly audible to
him even at the time of siren call. It is also
reported that none of the candidates who attended
the dictation test in the 1st batch had raised any
complaints regarding the siren call during the
dictation or after the end of dictation.
It is most respectfully submitted that as per
the statements of the Chief Superintendent,
WPC.37133 /2007 6
Additional Chief Superintendent and the dictator
who were the officers in charge of the dictation
test, the siren call from the Municipality during the
dictation held for the 1st batch which lasted for only
about 30 seconds and the sound had not caused
any hardship to the candidates as the dictator had
read the passage loudly so that the candidates
could take down the dictation without any
difficulty. The dictation was clearly audible to each
and every candidate at the time of siren call also
and as such there was no disturbance during the
dictation. Any of the candidates including the
petitioner did not complain at the time of dictation
that the passage read out was not audible to them.
It is most respectfully submitted that the
Secretary, had submitted a report dated
19.11.2007 to the Commission. The finding was
that the dictation test was conducted in a smooth
and fair manner and as such there was no need to
cancel the test held on 6.10.2007.”
A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner.
4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner
Sri.Kaleeswaran Raj and the learned Standing Counsel for the
WPC.37133 /2007 7
Public Service Commission Sri. Alexander Thomas.
5. Pursuant to my order dated 14.2.2008 Sri.Alexander
Thomas made available the report dated 19.11.2007 submitted
by the Secretary of the Commission and referred to in the
counter affidavit. I have gone through the said report as also
copies of the statement appended to the same.
6. Sri.Kaleeswaran Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the Public Service Commission Manual lays down the
manner in which the dictation test was to be held. It is admitted
that the municipal siren was blaring atleast during a portion of
the time when the test was held. Errors while transcribing the
dictated passage obviously lead to negative marks. All the
candidates are expected to be dealt with uniformly in any
selection conducted by the Public Service Commission. There
was intrusive external disturbance by way of the municipal siren
blaring during the period from 8.00 a.m. to 8.05 a.m., the Public
Service Commission should have in all fairness taken a decision
to conduct a fresh dictation test as such or atleast for those
candidates who felt that their performance was detrimentally
affected on account of the external disturbance.
WPC.37133 /2007 8
7. It has to be found from the materials on record that the
municipal siren was blaring for a period of time when the
dictation was being held. But the question is whether the Public
Service Commission should be directed to conduct a fresh
dictation test. Though there is no specific provision as such
brought to my notice, governing a situation of this kind, I do not
have any doubt in my mind that it would be open this court to
direct the Public Service Commission to conduct a fresh dictation
test, if this court is compelled to come to the conclusion that part
of the selection conducted by the Public Service Commission is to
be held as vitiated on account of the intrusive external
disturbance which was so perversive as to the render selection
the itself as bad. Mr.Alexander Thomas, learned counsel for the
Public Service Commission submits that the complaint filed by
some of the candidates including the petitioner was taken note of
seriously by the Commission and it is therefore that the Secretary
of the Commission himself was authorised to conduct an enquiry.
The secretary submitted a report on 19.11.2007. Appended
along with the report was the statement given by the Chief
Invigilator for the dictation test held on 6.10.2007, Sri. A
WPC.37133 /2007 9
Karunakaran, Headmaster of the Girls Higher Secondary School,
Kasaragod, statement of the person who conducted the dictation
Smt. M.Geetha, Confidential Assistant in the Collectorate at
Kasaragod. Sri. Ajith Kumar, Section Officer in the District
Public Service Commission office at Kasaragod and a statement
of the petitioner as such. Reference is also made to the
statement given by P.Madhusoodanan, brother of the petitioner
who also happens to be an Assistant in the Kannur District Office
of the Public Service Commission. The report shows that siren
was blaring for a short time during the period of dictation. But
apparently, Smt.Geetha, the person who conducted the dictation
made a provision to counter the said external disturbance by
increasing her voice to enable her to be heard by the candidates
during the period of dictation. She had also slowed down the
speed of the dictation during that time to enable the candidates
to follow her voice better. Siren was blaring for about 30 seconds
and the dictation lasted for five minutes. It is true that the
petitioner had approached the Chief Invigilator after the test but
apparently her anxiety was whether she had written her register
number appropriately. The complaint against the disturbance
WPC.37133 /2007 10
caused by the blaring of the siren was raised only well after the
test itself was over. The Public Service Commission came to the
legitimate conclusion that the disturbance complained of cannot
be characterised as one which should justify the conduct of a
fresh dictation test as such.
8. Having heard counsel on both sides and having perused
the report submitted by the Secretary of the Public Service
Commission and the statement appended thereto, I am of the
view that there are no circumstances in the instant case which
would justify a direction to the Public Service Commission to
conduct a fresh dictation test as such. I take note of the fact that
the Public Service Commission had responded to the complaint
filed by the petitioner and some other candidates and an enquiry
was conducted by a responsible officer, no less than the
Secretary of the Commission. I do not also find any reason why
the Chief Invigilator who happens to be the headmaster in a
Government Higher Secondary school and the person who
conducted the dictation, a Confidential Assistant working in the
District Collectorate should give either a diluted or twisted
version as regards the perversiveness of the disturbance that was
WPC.37133 /2007 11
caused at the time of dictation. Mr.Kaleeswaram Raj refers to
the well settled principle in administrative law that a person
cannot be a judge to his own cause, to contend for the position
that if the Public Service Commission was to deal with the
complaint in a serious manner then an enquiry into the complaint
should have been conducted by an external agency and not the
Secretary of the Commission. Notwithstanding the proposition
of law as such, I find it difficult to accept the submission. The
Commission was not required to act as a judge of a cause. It is a
constitutional body entrusted with the conduct of selection to
various public services in the State. There would be several
vicissitudes, which it would be required to deal with in the course
of discharging its function and it would not be possible to lay
down any strait-jacket formula or guideline for dealing with each
one of the contingencies. The manual contains the manner in
which the dictation test was to be held and in an ideal situation
the dictation would have to be conducted in a quiet place with a
person who conducts the dictation, dictating the words with such
speed and regulation that 400 words are dictated over a period of
five minutes. But external disturbance in the form of blaring of
WPC.37133 /2007 12
municipal siren in a not too distant place is obviously not a
contingency that could be specifically provided for in the Public
Service Commission Manual. Therefore, when the siren started
blaring, the person who conducted the dictation apparently had
raised her voice and had also slowed down the speed of the
dictation. This obviously made an allowance for the external
disturbance. The question is whether the Public Service
Commission is right in concluding that there are no circumstances
which warrant a fresh dictation test as such. Unless I am in a
position to find that the Public Service Commission has acted in
a completely irresponsible manner or had shirked it’s
responsibility in deciding not to conduct a fresh dictation test
inspite of the presence of over whelming material to the contra,
I would not be justified in interfering with the selection as such.
In my view, the Public Service Commission had acted promptly in
instituting an enquiry to be conducted by the Secretary of the
Commission and the decision taken by the Commission to accept
the report of the Secretary does not seem to be vitiated in any
manner.
For all these reasons, I do not find my way to give any
WPC.37133 /2007 13
direction to the Public Service Commission to conduct a fresh
dictation test. The writ petition is bereft of merit and
accordingly, it is dismissed.
V. GIRI, JUDGE.
pmn/