{"id":203536,"date":"2010-03-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-venumohan-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-18-march-2010"},"modified":"2014-03-08T22:36:31","modified_gmt":"2014-03-08T17:06:31","slug":"t-venumohan-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-18-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-venumohan-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-18-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"T.Venumohan vs The State Of Kerala on 18 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
T.Venumohan vs The State Of Kerala on 18 March, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 8979 of 2009(N)\n\n\n1. T.VENUMOHAN S\/O. K.THRIVIKRAMAN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. K.S.JAYALAL S\/O. C.V.SANTHAN,\n3. S.NOUSHAD S\/O. SARAFUDEEN,\n4. MOHAMMED MOOSA S\/O. KIDER MOHAMMED,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,\n\n3. THE DISTRICT OFFICER,\n\n4. THE DISTRICT OFFICER,\n\n5. THE DISTRICT OFFICER,\n\n6. THE DISTRICT OFFICER,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR\n\n Dated :18\/03\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                                                                        C.R\n\n\n                              C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.\n                       --------------------------------------------\n                           W.P.(C). NOS. 8979, 11524\n                                  & 16528 OF 2009\n                       --------------------------------------------\n                      Dated this the 18th day of March, 2010\n\n\n                                    JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
       The authority of the Kerala Public Service Commission (for short ‘the<\/p>\n
Commission’ only) for prescribing and conducting ‘Physical Efficiency Test’<\/p>\n
for recruitment to the post of Excise Guards against 10% vacancies set apart<\/p>\n
for persons included in the last grade service as part of the selection process<\/p>\n
initiated as per notification dated 12.3.2007, is assailed in these Writ Petitions.<\/p>\n
Therefore, they are heard and being considered jointly. Before adverting to<\/p>\n
the averments, it is only apposite to refer to the rules relevant for the purpose<\/p>\n
of deciding the aforesaid points.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       2.    The Special Rules for the Kerala Excise and Prohibition<\/p>\n
Subordinate Service (for short ‘the Special Rules’ only) provide the methods of<\/p>\n
appointment to the post of Excise Guards and, as per which, 90% of the<\/p>\n
vacancies in the said category shall be filled up by direct recruitment and the<\/p>\n
remaining 10% of the vacancies shall be filled up by transfer from members of<\/p>\n
the last grade service        in the Department, who possess the required<\/p>\n
qualifications.   In the absence of        qualified last grade employees in the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) NOS. 8979, 11524
\n& 16528 OF 2009                       2<\/span><\/p>\n
Department, for appointment by transfer against the 10% vacancies under that<\/p>\n
category, the same shall be filled by direct recruitment. Rule 5 of the Special<\/p>\n
Rules prescribes the qualifications for appointment to the categories in the<\/p>\n
subordinate service including Excise Guards. Category 3 therein is Excise<\/p>\n
Guards and the qualifications for appointment to the said post are prescribed<\/p>\n
as hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
   Excise Guards     Recruitment\n                     by transfer and\n                     direct recruitment         (1)  Must have\n                                                     completed\n                                                     the S.S.L.C course\n                                                     or its equivalent.\n\n                                                (2)  Must not be\n                                                     less than\n                                                     165 cm. In\n                                                     height and\n                                                     81cm round\n                                                     the chest with\n                                                     a minimum\n                                                     expansion of\n                                                     5cm.\n\n                                                     [Provided that\n                                                     in the case of\n                                                     candidates\n                                                     belonging to\n                                                     the Scheduled\n                                                     Castes and\n                                                     Scheduled\n                                                     Tribes, the\n                                                     minimum\n                                                     height shall be\n\nW.P.(C) NOS. 8979, 11524\n& 16528 OF 2009                        3<\/span>\n\n\n\n                                                      160 cms. and\n                                                      the minimum\n                                                      chest\n                                                      measurement\n                                                      shall be 76\n                                                      cms. with a\n                                                      minimum\n                                                      expansion of\n                                                      5cms.]\n\n\n\n                                                (3)   Must be certified\n                                                      by a Medical\n                                                      Officer not\n                                                      below the\n                                                      rank of an\n                                                      Assistant\n                                                      Surgeon      as\n                                                      to his physique,\n                                                      fitness and\n                                                      capacity for\n                                                      active\n                                                      outdoor work.\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
       3.    For the sake of convenience, the documents are being referred to<\/p>\n
in this judgment in the order they are set out in W.P.(C).No.8979\/2009. The<\/p>\n
petitioners in these Writ Petitions are last grade servants in the Excise<\/p>\n
Department and they applied for the post of Excise Guards in different<\/p>\n
districts pursuant to Ext.P1 notification, dated 12.3.2007 for appointment by<\/p>\n
transfer against the 10% quota set apart for them. Note (1) under the clause 7<\/p>\n
(3) of Ext.P1 notification carries the assailed stipulation for conducting<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) NOS. 8979, 11524
\n& 16528 OF 2009                            4<\/span><\/p>\n
Physical Efficiency Test. It reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
              Note (1)-“If necessary a Physical Efficiency Test will
\n              be conducted to assess the physical fitness of
\n              candidates before the interview. The details of the
\n              test will be intimated later.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Later, in terms of the said note (1), the following items of the Physical<\/p>\n
Efficiency Test were prescribed and conducted as part of the Physical<\/p>\n
Efficiency Test.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n          Items of Physical efficiency test           Minimum standard\n\n                                                      required (1 star standard)\n             1. 100 meters runs                 :   14 seconds\n\n             2. High Jump                       :   132.20 cms\n\n             3. Long Jump                        :   457.20 cms\n\n             4. Putting the shot of 7264 gms.    :   609.60 cms\n\n             5. Throwing the cricket ball        :   6096 cms\n\n             6. Rope climbing (using hands only) :    365.80 cms\n\n             7. Full ups or chinning              :   8 times\n\n             8. 1500 meters run                  :   5 minutes and 44 seconds\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
         The candidates must qualify in any 5 events out of the 8 specified above
\n       of the National Physical Efficiency One Star Standard Test.<\/p>\n
      4.     The petitioners who came out successful in the written<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) NOS. 8979, 11524
\n& 16528 OF 2009                        5<\/span><\/p>\n
examination, challenged the very prescription of Physical Efficiency Test by<\/p>\n
the Commission in Ext.P1 notification.        However, this Court passed an<\/p>\n
interim order requiring the petitioners to partake in the Physical Efficiency<\/p>\n
Test. The petitioners unsuccessfully participated in the Physical Efficiency<\/p>\n
Test. However, the failure to qualify in the said test cannot prejudicially<\/p>\n
affect the contentions raised in these Writ Petitions as the said position has<\/p>\n
been made clear in the interim order itself and therefore, despite their failure<\/p>\n
in the said physical efficiency test, the challenge against the authority of the<\/p>\n
Commission to conduct such test as part of recruitment process to the post of<\/p>\n
Excise Guards calls for consideration.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      5.    Admittedly, all the petitioners possess the prescribed academic<\/p>\n
qualifications for appointment to the post of Excise Guards. They have also<\/p>\n
produced medical certificates issued by competent medical officers not below<\/p>\n
the rank of Assistant Surgeon as provided under the Special Rules and also in<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 notification. According to the petitioners, the Special Rules provide<\/p>\n
only for production of such certificates issued by competent medical officers<\/p>\n
not below the rank of Assistant Surgeon to prove physique, fitness and<\/p>\n
capacity for active outdoor work.       Therefore, it is beyond the scope of<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) NOS. 8979, 11524
\n& 16528 OF 2009                        6<\/span><\/p>\n
authority of the Commission to stipulate a further Physical Efficiency Test in<\/p>\n
the notification and, as such, the conduct of Physical Efficiency Test vitiated<\/p>\n
the entire selection process. Item No.3 under qualification No.3 prescribed in<\/p>\n
category No.3 in Rule 5 of the Special Rules have virtually been incorporated<\/p>\n
in Ext.P1 notification and they are worthy to be extracted in the context of<\/p>\n
the aforesaid contentions. They read thus:\n<\/p>\n
             “must be certified by a Medical Officer not below the
\n             rank of an Assistant Surgeon as to his physique,
\n             fitness and capacity or active outdoor work. The
\n             Medical Certificate has to be produced as and when
\n             called for.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      6.     The contention of the petitioners is that when the Special Rules<\/p>\n
provide only for production of a certificate issued by a competent medical<\/p>\n
officer not below the rank of an Assistant Surgeon,          the  P.S.C cannot<\/p>\n
stipulate and conduct Physical Efficiency Test as part of the recruitment<\/p>\n
process to the aforesaid post under the 10% quota set apart for Last Grade<\/p>\n
service in the Department. Prescription of such a test is nothing but adding<\/p>\n
another qualification which is not prescribed in the Special Rules for<\/p>\n
appointment by transfer to the said post, and, therefore, liable to be interfered<\/p>\n
with, it is contended. To buttress the said contention, the petitioners have<\/p>\n
relied on various decisions including the decision of this Court in Kerala<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) NOS. 8979, 11524
\n& 16528 OF 2009                         7<\/span><\/p>\n
Public Service Commission v. Abdul Rasheed and others reported in 2007<\/p>\n
(3) ILR Kerala 345. It was contended by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioners that Ext.P14 (sic.Ext.P17) would lend support to his contentions.<\/p>\n
Admittedly, an amendment has been brought to the Special Rules, as is<\/p>\n
obvious from Ext.P14(Sic Ext.P17), in Rule 2 under category 4. As per the<\/p>\n
amendment, after the second proviso the following proviso has been inserted,<\/p>\n
namely:-\n<\/p>\n
             “Provided also that, the candidates to all categories
\n             by direct recruitment and by transfer, shall pass the
\n             written and Physical Efficiency Tests, conducted by
\n             Public Service Commission as in the Police
\n             Department”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      7.     Indisputably, after the said amendment, the candidates<\/p>\n
competing against the 10% set apart for appointment by transfer from last<\/p>\n
grade service have to pass the Physical Efficiency Test also. Based on the<\/p>\n
said proviso that was inserted under category No.4 in the Rule 2 of the<\/p>\n
Special Rules with effect from 4.6.2008, it was further contended that in the<\/p>\n
matter of recruitment to the post of Excise Guards pursuant to a notification<\/p>\n
invited prior to 4.6.2008, the Commission could not have and should not<\/p>\n
have stipulated and conducted Physical Efficiency Test. If it was within the<\/p>\n
authority of the Commission to stipulate and conduct Physical Efficiency<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) NOS. 8979, 11524
\n& 16528 OF 2009                      8<\/span><\/p>\n
Test even prior to the amendment, it was absolutely unnecessary to bring<\/p>\n
such an amendment, it is contended. In short, according to the counsel for<\/p>\n
the petitioners, the Commission was lacking authority to stipulate and<\/p>\n
conduct Physical Efficiency Test in the matter of recruitment by appointment<\/p>\n
by transfer as against the 10% vacancies of Excise Guards set apart for Last<\/p>\n
Grade Service and hence, the entire selection pursuant to Ext.P1 notification<\/p>\n
is vitiated.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       8.    The Commission and the State have filed counter affidavits in<\/p>\n
these Writ Petitions.    In the counter affidavit filed by the Commission,<\/p>\n
besides refuting the claims and contentions raised by the petitioners, the<\/p>\n
Commission has made extensive averments to justify the stipulation and the<\/p>\n
subsequent conducting of the Physical Efficiency Test as part of the<\/p>\n
recruitment process initiated as per Ext.P1 notification. The core contention<\/p>\n
raised on behalf of the Commission is that the stipulation in the notification<\/p>\n
regarding Physical Efficiency    Test as    part of a recruitment process<\/p>\n
cannot be construed as prescription of an additional qualification. It is well<\/p>\n
within its competence and in fact, it owes a constitutional duty to conduct<\/p>\n
Physical Efficiency Test considering the nature of the duties attached to the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) NOS. 8979, 11524
\n& 16528 OF 2009                        9<\/span><\/p>\n
post of Excise Guards and in view of the provisions in the special rules, to<\/p>\n
carry out the selection process fairly. To sustain the said contentions my<\/p>\n
attention was drawn to Article 320 of the Constitution of India and Rule 3 of<\/p>\n
the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure (for short ‘ the<\/p>\n
Procedure Rules’). It was further contended that the only impact of the<\/p>\n
amendment brought to Rule 2 under category 4 by inserting the proviso, as is<\/p>\n
obvious from Ext.P14 (sic Ext.P17), is that the conduct of Physical<\/p>\n
Efficiency Test which lies with the discretion of the Commission was made<\/p>\n
mandatory and a pass in Physical Efficiency Test is mandatory to candidates<\/p>\n
of all categories by direct recruitment and by transfer, under the Kerala<\/p>\n
Excise and Prohibition Subordinate Service as in the Police Department.<\/p>\n
Earlier, the Commission invariably exercised the said discretion taking into<\/p>\n
account the nature of the qualifications prescribed and also the nature of the<\/p>\n
duties attached to the post, the recruitment of which is left with the<\/p>\n
Commission. Therefore, according to the Commission, the said amendment<\/p>\n
cannot and will not lend support to the contentions of the petitioners.<\/p>\n
      9.     The contention of the petitioners that the amendment brought to<\/p>\n
Clause 5(3) with effect from 4.6.2008 would support their stand that the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) NOS. 8979, 11524
\n& 16528 OF 2009                        10<\/span><\/p>\n
Commission was lacking authority to stipulate and conduct the Physical<\/p>\n
Efficiency Test and the rival contention of the respondents that it only made<\/p>\n
the discretion exercisable by the Commission in the matter of prescribing<\/p>\n
Physical Efficiency Test as part of recruitment process to the post of Excise<\/p>\n
Guards mandatory are also to be examined to answer the issue involved in<\/p>\n
these cases.  Article 320 of the Constitution of India casts a constitutional<\/p>\n
duty on the Commission to conduct examinations for appointments to the<\/p>\n
services of the State, the recruitment of which are entrusted to the<\/p>\n
Commission, fairly, impartially and independently.             Admittedly, the<\/p>\n
recruitment to the post in question has been entrusted to the P.S.C. Rule (3)<\/p>\n
of K.P.S.C Rules of Procedure is relevant in this context and the same reads<\/p>\n
thus:\n<\/p>\n
            The Commission may conduct all or any one or more
\n            of the following examinations to assess the merits of
\n            candidates considered for recruitment to a service or
\n            post;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   (i)    Written Examination.\n                   (ii)   Practical Test.\n                   (iii)  Physical Efficiency Tests\n                   (iv)   Oral Test (Interview)\n                   (v)    Any other test or examination, which\n                          the commission may deem, fit to hold.\n\n<\/pre>\n
      10.   Rule 3 would thus reveal that the Commission may conduct all<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) NOS. 8979, 11524
\n& 16528 OF 2009                        11<\/span><\/p>\n
or any one or more of the examinations\/tests to assess the merits of<\/p>\n
candidates considered for recruitment to a service or post in accordance with<\/p>\n
law, in a fair manner to discharge its constitutional duty. In this context, the<\/p>\n
expressions used for denoting the requisite qualification relating health in<\/p>\n
item No.3 under category 3 of Rule 5 of the Special Rules viz., ‘physique,<\/p>\n
fitness and capacity for active outdoor work’ assume relevance. A conjoint<\/p>\n
reading of all the aforementioned provisions would undoubtedly suggest that<\/p>\n
the stipulation and also the subsequent conduct of Physical Efficiency Test<\/p>\n
are nothing but a test conducted uniformly, by the Commission to assess<\/p>\n
the merits of the candidates viz., to assess the fitness and capacity for active<\/p>\n
outdoor work.     When fitness and capacity for active outdoor work are<\/p>\n
prescribed as the required qualifications relating health in the Special Rules,<\/p>\n
the possession of such qualifications cannot be assessed without conducting a<\/p>\n
Physical Efficiency Test and, therefore, prescription of Physical Efficiency<\/p>\n
Test cannot be taken as prescription of an additional qualification. In fact, it<\/p>\n
is only a test to assess whether the candidates possess the aforesaid<\/p>\n
prescribed qualification as per the Special Rules.         Rule 11 (i) of the<\/p>\n
Procedures Rules is also relevant in this context. It reads as hereunder:<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             A decision as to the following shall be taken by the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) NOS. 8979, 11524
\n& 16528 OF 2009                         12<\/span><\/p>\n
             Commission in respect of all selections made by
\n             them:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   (i)   whether any candidate possesses the
\n             prescribed qualifications for the post;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      11.   In the light of the aforesaid findings and observations relating<\/p>\n
the competency of the Commission to stipulate and conduct the Physical<\/p>\n
Efficiency Test, it has to be construed that after the amendment that was<\/p>\n
brought with effect from 4.6.2008 it is mandatory to conduct the Physical<\/p>\n
Efficiency Test i.e., the Commission cannot now dispense with physical<\/p>\n
efficiency test as part of selection process for recruitment to the post of<\/p>\n
Excise Guards against the aforesaid 10% quota and in fact, the Commission<\/p>\n
is bound to conduct that test with effect from 4.6.2008, in the matter of such<\/p>\n
recruitment to the post of Excise Guards.       Therefore, the contention of the<\/p>\n
petitioners based on the amendment that was brought by inserting a proviso<\/p>\n
under the 2nd proviso to item 3 under category 4 in Rule 2 of the Special<\/p>\n
Rules also cannot be countenanced.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      12.   Another contention was raised relying on the counter affidavit<\/p>\n
filed by the state.    The learned counsel for the petitioners read certain<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) NOS. 8979, 11524
\n& 16528 OF 2009                        13<\/span><\/p>\n
statements made in the said counter affidavit in isolation to contend that the<\/p>\n
counter affidavit is in favour of the petitioners. The statement ‘The rule in<\/p>\n
force’ at the time to assess the physical efficiency\/fitness of a candidate<\/p>\n
applied for appointment to the post of Excise guards by direct recruitment<\/p>\n
and by transfer is limited to be certified by a medical officer not below the<\/p>\n
rank of Assistant Surgeon as to his physique, fitness and capacity for active<\/p>\n
outdoor work’ is particularly relied on by the counsel for the petitioner in a<\/p>\n
bid to substantiate the said contention. I am afraid that the said contention<\/p>\n
also cannot be countenanced. To understand the stand of the Government,<\/p>\n
the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent has to be looked<\/p>\n
into as a whole. Virtually, a reading of the statements in the counter affidavit<\/p>\n
would, indisputably, reveal that the Government support the stand of the<\/p>\n
P.S.C.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       13.   Certain facts borne out from the materials produced before this<\/p>\n
Court are worthy to be noticed in the context of the contentions raised in<\/p>\n
these Writ Petitions. Exts.P10 to P12 (sic. Exts.P13 to P15) are the medical<\/p>\n
certificates produced by the petitioners 1 to 3 along with the reply affidavit<\/p>\n
filed on 17.7.2009 in W.P.(C).No.8979\/2009. The fourth petitioner and also<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) NOS. 8979, 11524
\n& 16528 OF 2009                           14<\/span><\/p>\n
the other writ petitioners did not produce such medical certificates which<\/p>\n
they had produced before the Commission. The certification in Exts.P10 to<\/p>\n
P12(sic Exts.P13 to P15), in so far as it is relevant for the purpose of these<\/p>\n
cases are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
       In Ext.P10 (sic Ext.P13)<\/p>\n
       Any morbid condition of the eye or lids of either eye- Nil
\n       He has good physical fitness and capacity for active
\n       out door work -Yes
\n       He is physically fit for the post of Excise Guard in Excise Department.<\/p>\n
       In Ext.P11(sic Ext.P14)<\/p>\n
       Any morbid condition of the eye or lids of either eye- Nil
\n       He has good physical fitness and capacity for active outdoor work
\n       He is physically fit for the post of Excise Guard in the Excise
\n       Department.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       In Ext.P12 (sic Ext.P15)<\/p>\n
       Any morbid condition of the eye or lids of either eye – nil
\n       He has good physical fitness and capacity for active outdoor
\n       work
\n       He is physically fit for the post of Excise Guard in the Excise
\n       Department.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      14.    A scanning of Exts.P10 to P12 (sic. Exts.P13 to P15) would<\/p>\n
undoubtedly reveal that they are certificates issued in printed format. In<\/p>\n
Ext.P10(sic. Ext.P13) against the statement ‘He has good physical fitness and<\/p>\n
capacity for active work’ the certification is ‘yes’ and at the same time there is<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) NOS. 8979, 11524
\n& 16528 OF 2009                       15<\/span><\/p>\n
no such certification against the same statement in Exts.P11(sic Ext.P14) and<\/p>\n
P12(sic Ext.P15). Against the statement ‘He is physically fit for the post of<\/p>\n
Excise Guard in the Excise Department’ there is no certification at all in all<\/p>\n
these three certificates. All the other petitioners also did not have a case that<\/p>\n
the certificates produced by them before the Commission were not in a<\/p>\n
printed format and separate certification was made in respect of those<\/p>\n
statements regarding their physical fitness after making them undergo tests to<\/p>\n
determine their physical fitness and capacity for active outdoor work. The<\/p>\n
duties attached to the post of Excise Guard, indisputably, involve arduous<\/p>\n
works for which good physique, fitness and capacity for active outdoor<\/p>\n
work are required.     These three conditions are admittedly prescribed as<\/p>\n
qualifications in the Special Rules and in terms of the Special Rules in Ext.P1<\/p>\n
notification. Therefore, the question is whether the Commission was bound<\/p>\n
to blindly accept the medical certificates issued in a printed format as final<\/p>\n
words as regards the possession of ‘physique, fitness and capacity for active<\/p>\n
outdoor work’ even in the absence of anything in such certificates to show<\/p>\n
the tests conducted to arrive at the opinion with regard to the concerned<\/p>\n
candidate and whether the Commission is justified in conducting a uniform<\/p>\n
Physical Efficiency Test to determine whether the applicants possess<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) NOS. 8979, 11524
\n& 16528 OF 2009                        16<\/span><\/p>\n
physique, fitness and capacity for active outdoor work, the qualifications<\/p>\n
prescribed under the Special Rules’.       Indisputably, in the case of direct<\/p>\n
recruitment to the post of Excise Guards, the candidates were made to<\/p>\n
undergo Physical Efficiency Test as part of the recruitment process. The<\/p>\n
requirement to produce medical certificates in the manner prescribed in the<\/p>\n
Special Rules can, in the circumstances, be treated only as a condition to<\/p>\n
earn eligibility as regards a candidate under the 10% quota set apart for last<\/p>\n
grade servants in the post of Excise Guards, to participate in the selection<\/p>\n
process.   It would only enable the authorities to weed out the disabled<\/p>\n
candidates at the initial point itself and at any rate, the issuance of medical<\/p>\n
certificates by medical officers cannot be taken as an assessment of the<\/p>\n
qualifications namely, ‘physique, fitness and capacity for active outdoor<\/p>\n
work’ done as part of the recruitment process. Such an assessment has to be<\/p>\n
made uniformly in the case of all applicants to ensure fairness in selection<\/p>\n
and therefore, can be made only by the recruiting agency. In this view of the<\/p>\n
matter, Article 320 of the Constitution of India and Rule 3 of the Procedure<\/p>\n
Rules would reveal that it, in fact, is the duty of the Commission. The facts<\/p>\n
expatiated above would reveal that the Commission was legally justified in<\/p>\n
conducting the Physical Efficiency Test to have uniform assessment of the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) NOS. 8979, 11524
\n& 16528 OF 2009                      17<\/span><\/p>\n
fitness and capacity for active outdoor work in terms of the Special Rules in<\/p>\n
respect of all candidates. Accepting medical certificates produced by<\/p>\n
candidates wherein the fitness and capacity for active outdoor work is<\/p>\n
properly certified and conducting such test only in respect of the candidates<\/p>\n
in whose case such certifications are absent would be against public interest<\/p>\n
and definitely would not be a proper discharge of the duty cast upon the<\/p>\n
Commission under Article 320 of the Constitution of India.<\/p>\n
      15.   In view of the discussions made above, I am of the opinion that<\/p>\n
prescription of Physical Efficiency Test in Ext.P1 notification and then,<\/p>\n
conducting the same as part of recruitment process initiated as per Ext.P1<\/p>\n
cannot be taken as factors vitiating the recruitment process. There is no<\/p>\n
merit in the challenge against the authority of the P.S.C in prescribing and<\/p>\n
conducting Physical Efficiency Test as part of the selection initiated as per<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 notification and these Writ Petitions are, therefore, liable to fail.<\/p>\n
      Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                        (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
spc<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) NOS. 8979, 11524
\n& 16528 OF 2009             18<\/span><\/p>\n
                                C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.\n<\/p>\n
                                W.P.(C).Nos.8979, 11524 &
\n                                16528 OF 2009<\/p>\n
                                JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
                                18th March, 2010<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) NOS. 8979, 11524
\n& 16528 OF 2009             19<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court T.Venumohan vs The State Of Kerala on 18 March, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 8979 of 2009(N) 1. T.VENUMOHAN S\/O. K.THRIVIKRAMAN, … Petitioner 2. K.S.JAYALAL S\/O. C.V.SANTHAN, 3. S.NOUSHAD S\/O. SARAFUDEEN, 4. MOHAMMED MOOSA S\/O. KIDER MOHAMMED, Vs 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY … Respondent […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-203536","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nT.Venumohan vs The State Of Kerala on 18 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-venumohan-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-18-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"T.Venumohan vs The State Of Kerala on 18 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-venumohan-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-18-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-03-08T17:06:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-venumohan-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-18-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-venumohan-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-18-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"T.Venumohan vs The State Of Kerala on 18 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-03-08T17:06:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-venumohan-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-18-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3245,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-venumohan-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-18-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-venumohan-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-18-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-venumohan-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-18-march-2010\",\"name\":\"T.Venumohan vs The State Of Kerala on 18 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-03-08T17:06:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-venumohan-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-18-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-venumohan-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-18-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-venumohan-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-18-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"T.Venumohan vs The State Of Kerala on 18 March, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"T.Venumohan vs The State Of Kerala on 18 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-venumohan-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-18-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"T.Venumohan vs The State Of Kerala on 18 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-venumohan-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-18-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-03-08T17:06:31+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-venumohan-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-18-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-venumohan-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-18-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"T.Venumohan vs The State Of Kerala on 18 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-03-08T17:06:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-venumohan-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-18-march-2010"},"wordCount":3245,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-venumohan-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-18-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-venumohan-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-18-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-venumohan-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-18-march-2010","name":"T.Venumohan vs The State Of Kerala on 18 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-03-08T17:06:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-venumohan-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-18-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-venumohan-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-18-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-venumohan-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-18-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"T.Venumohan vs The State Of Kerala on 18 March, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/203536","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=203536"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/203536\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=203536"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=203536"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=203536"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}