IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16925 of 2009(I)
1. RIJESH.V., S/O.C.P.NARAYANAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
3. THE COMMANDANT, KAP IV BATTALION,
4. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
5. THE DISTRICT OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
For Respondent :SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :14/08/2009
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
-----------------------------
W.P(C) No.16925 of 2009-I
------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of August, 2009.
Heard Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, Sri.Antony Mukkath, the learned Government Pleader
appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri.Alexander Thomas, the learned
standing counsel appearing for the Kerala Public Service Commission.
2. The petitioner was an applicant for appointment to the post
of Police Constable in the Armed Police Battalion in Kasargod District.
When the petitioner appeared for the physical efficiency test held on
5.5.2009, his height was recorded as 166.5 cms. He was accordingly
disqualified. He appealed against the decision and on re-measurement
his height was recorded as 166.8 cms. Since he did not have the
minimum prescribed height, the decision disqualifying him was upheld.
This writ petition was thereupon filed challenging his disqualification. The
petitioner contends relying on Ext.P4 and P5 certificates that his height is
167 cms.
3. When this writ petition came up for admission on 1.7.2009,
in view of the difference in the height originally recorded and on appeal
this Court directed the Kerala Public Service Commission to have the
height of the petitioner remeasured with the assistance of the District
Medical Officer, Kasargod. As directed by this Court, the District Medical
Officer, Kasargod remeasured the height of the petitioner and has
W.P(C) No.16925 of 2009-I 2
certified (Ext.R4(b) that the petitioner's height is 166.7. cms. The
petitioner does not question the correctness on the said measurement.
He however relies on Exts.P4 and P5 produced along with the writ petition
to contend that he has the minimum prescribed height. Apart from
Exts.P4 and P5 which are certificates issued by the Assistant Surgeon,
General Hospital, Thalassery and an Assistant Professor of the
Department of Medicine, Kannur Medical College, the petitioner has not
produced any material to show that his height was not correctly measured
in the physical test held by the Kerala Public Service Commission. In the
two measurements conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission
and the third measurement conducted at the intervention of this Court,
the petitioner's height was found to be below 167 cms. In the absence of
any cogent material to show that the measurement conducted by the
District Medical Officer is incorrect, no reliance can be placed on Exts.P4
and P5. In such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the
decision taken by the Kerala Public Service Commission to disqualify the
petitioner.
I accordingly hold hat there is no merit in this writ petition. The
writ petition fails and is dismissed.
Sd/-
P.N.RAVINDRAN
Judge
ab
? IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
+WP(C).No. 14911 of 2008(A)
#1. VINOD K.,
... Petitioner
2. ANITHAKUMARI C.K.
Vs
$1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
... Respondent
2. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
! For Petitioner :SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
^ For Respondent :SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC
*Coram
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
% Dated :03/08/2009
: O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
—————————–
W.P(C) No.14911 of 2008-A
——————————
Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
Heard Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, Sri.Alexander Thomas, the learned standing counsel
appearing for the Kerala Public Service Commission and
Sri.C.Unnikrishnan, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala
Water Authority.
2. The petitioners who were working as Peon and Hospital
Attendant Gr.II respectively in different departments, applied for
appointment by direct recruitment and also by transfer to the post of
Lower Division Typist in various departments in Kasargod district. The
notification inviting applications was published in the Kerala Gazette
dated 31.12.2005. By the same notification, applications were invited for
appointment by direct recruitment in the Kerala Water Authority. The
petitioners applied both for appointment by direct recruitment and by
transfer. They were selected and included in list I of Ext.P1 ranked list
containing the names of candidates selected for appointment by direct
recruitment. They were also included list II of Ext.P1 ranked list
containing the names of candidates selected for appointment by transfer.
In list I, the petitioners are rank Nos.17 and 19 and in list II, rank, Nos.3
W.P(C) No.14911 of 2008-A 2
and 4 respectively. The petitioners did not relinquish their right for
advice based on the inclusion of their names in list I of Ext.P1 ranked list.
As a result thereof, when the turn of the petitioners arose, they were
advised for appointment by direct recruitment in the Kerala Water
Authority by Exts.P2 and P3 advice memos dated 7.4.2008. The said
action was legal and proper for the reason that even in the notification
inviting applications by direct recruitment, it had been stated that
vacancies reported by the Kerala Water Authority will also be filled up
from the same ranked list. This writ petition thereupon filed contending
that as the names of the petitioners have been included in list II of Ext.P1
ranked list they are entitled to be appointed by transfer in departments
other than the Kerala Water Authority and that if they are appointed in
Kerala Water Authority they will loose their chances of appointment in
other departments. In this writ petition, the petitioners pray for a writ in
the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to advice them to
the post of L.D Typist in Government departments.
3. The Kerala Public Service Commission has filed a counter
affidavit wherein, relying on Rule 18(iii) of the Kerala Public Service
Commission Rules of Procedure, the Commission has contended that with
the advice of the petitioners based on the inclusion of their names in list I
of Ext.P1 ranked list, their names stand automatically deleted from list I
W.P(C) No.14911 of 2008-A 3
and list II of Ext.P1 ranked list. The Commission has contended that even
in the notification inviting applications it had been stated that
appointment by direct recruitment will be made from the same ranked
list to vacancies reported by the Kerala Water Authority also and that the
petitioners who had applied for appointment by direct recruitment cannot
contend that they cannot be advised for appointment in the Kerala Water
Authority.
4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the
learned counsel appearing on either side. Ext.P4 notification, which led
to Ext.P1 ranked list states in categorical terms that vacancies reported
by the Kerala Water Authority will also be filled up from the same ranked
list. The petitioners applied for direct recruitment fully aware of this
stipulation. They were selected and included in list I of Ext.P2 ranked list.
Rule 18(iii) of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure
states that a candidate whose name has been included in more than one
ranked list for the same post in the same department/various
departments finalized on the basis of the very same notification under
different methods of recruitment, is advised from any one of the
aforesaid ranked lists, his name shall be removed from the other ranked
list/lists. In the light of the said rule, the validity of which is not under
challenge in this writ petition, with the advice of the petitioners for
W.P(C) No.14911 of 2008-A 4
appointment by direct recruitment in the Kerala Water Authority as per
Exts.P2 and P3 memos, their names stood deleted from Ext.P1 ranked
list. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Kerala Public Service
Commission acted illegally in advising the petitioners for appointment in
the Kerala Water Authority when their turn for advice arose. In the light
of Rule 18(iii) of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure,
the contention raised by the petitioners cannot be sustained.
I accordingly hold that there is no merit in this writ petition. The
writ petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
P.N.RAVINDRAN
JUDGE
//True Copy//
PA to Judge
ab