IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 32166 of 2006(D)
1. SEENATH K., D/O. MOIDUTTY,
... Petitioner
2. JAYASHREE K.S., W/O. JAGANIVASAN,
3. OMANA K.C., D/O. K.V.CHACKO,
4. PRIYA K.C., W/O. JANE PAULOSE,
5. RANI MATHEW, D/O. K.P.MATHEW,
6. DEEPA K.C., W/O. PRADEEP,
7. BINDU P., D/O. V.P.KESAVANKUTTY,
8. JYOTHI UNNIKRISHNAN, W/O. PRADEEP,
9. INDU M., D/O. K.V.MADHAVANKUTTY,
10. BHAGYALAKSHI,
Vs
1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER,
3. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :28/06/2007
O R D E R
A.K. BASHEER, J.
--------------------------
W.P.(C). NO. 32166 OF 2006
---------------------
Dated this the 28th day of June, 2007
J U D G M E N T
Petitioners who claim to have participated in the written
examination held by the Kerala Public Service Commission in November
2005 for selection and appointment to the post of Lower Primary School
Assistant (Malayalam) have filed this writ petition praying for a declaration
that the written test held in “Palakkad and other Districts” is thoroughly
irregular, bristled with various irregularities, and therefore it is liable to be
declared as illegal, void and inoperative. There is a further prayer to
interdict the Commission from advising candidates from the list prepared by
it on the basis of the above written test.
2. The case of the petitioners appears to be that many of the
questions in the question papers were from subjects “outside the syllabus”.
They have produced a true photocopy of one such question paper as
Ext.P1. According to the petitioners, subjects like Malayalam and Maths
were not included in the examination. But questions carrying eleven marks
were included in the question paper. Significantly, the syllabus for the
examination has not been produced.
3. The other contention raised by the petitioners is that cut off
marks fixed by the Commission for each District are “altogether different”.
WPC NO.32166/06 Page numbers
Of course petitioners have indicated the marks set apart for each District.
The contention is that the above method adopted by the Commission is
highly discriminatory.
4. It is admitted by the petitioners that the Commission had
published the short list and final ranked list after holding the test. The
grievance of the petitioners is that their names did not find a place in the list
because of the above discrepancies and irregularities.
5. Significantly, this writ petition was filed in December 2006, more
that one year after holding of the examination.
6. I have carefully perused the averments made in the writ petition.
I do not find any valid reason to allow the prayers made by the petitioners
not only for the reason that the writ petition was filed belatedly, but also
since petitioners have not placed sufficient materials on record to
substantiate their contentions. Indisputably, several candidates who have
been included in the list might have been advised already. None of them
have been made parties. At this belated stage, it may not be proper or just
to upset the settled situation.
Therefore the writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE
vps
WPC NO.32166/06 Page numbers
A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE
OP NO.20954/00
WPC NO.32166/06 Page numbers
JUDGMENT
1ST MARCH, 2007