{"id":247455,"date":"2008-08-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prameela-p-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-19-august-2008"},"modified":"2016-09-08T05:29:54","modified_gmt":"2016-09-07T23:59:54","slug":"prameela-p-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-19-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prameela-p-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-19-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"Prameela P vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 19 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Prameela P vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 19 August, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 37133 of 2007(U)\n\n\n1. PRAMEELA P.,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI\n\n Dated :19\/08\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                             V. GIRI, J.\n                    -------------------------------\n                    WP(C).NO.37133 of 2007\n                   ---------------------------------\n           Dated this the 19th day of August, 2008\n\n                            JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      The petitioner applied for the post of Confidential Assistant<\/p>\n
Grade II in Kasaragod District pursuant to the notification issued<\/p>\n
by the Public Service Commission.         The selection consists of<\/p>\n
written test in the OMR form and a dictation test. The dictation<\/p>\n
test was held on 6.10.2007. The format for the dictation test<\/p>\n
provided a passage in English consisting of 400 words to be read<\/p>\n
in five minutes (80 words per minute). The candidate was to<\/p>\n
take down the passage in short hand and then transcribe it in<\/p>\n
long hand using ink within one hour. It is the petitioner’s case<\/p>\n
that 36 candidates appeared for the dictation test. They were<\/p>\n
divided into two batches. The petitioner was included in the<\/p>\n
first batch. The dictation for the first batch commenced at 8.00<\/p>\n
a.m. and ended at 8.05 a.m.       The specific case of the petitioner<\/p>\n
is that for about three minutes during the dictation, the municipal<\/p>\n
siren was blaring and the candidates were not in a position to<\/p>\n
hear properly on account of the siren.          The Municipal office<\/p>\n
WPC.37133 \/2007               2<\/span><\/p>\n
building is situated nearby in close proximity to the place where<\/p>\n
the dictation test was held.         Ext.P4 contains the special<\/p>\n
instructions   given   by   the    Service   Commission    to   the<\/p>\n
Superintendents\/Shorthand dictators in the matter of conducting<\/p>\n
the dictation test. Similar instructions are contained in the Public<\/p>\n
Service Commission Manuel as such. The relevant portion of the<\/p>\n
same is produced as Ext.P5.        Particular reference is made to<\/p>\n
clause ‘6’ of Ext.P4, which reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
            “For the dictation all the candidates in each<\/p>\n
            batch may be seated together near the<\/p>\n
            person who gives the dictation in such a<\/p>\n
            manner so as to ensure that the dictation is<\/p>\n
            clearly audible to all the candidates. The<\/p>\n
            passage should be dictated in a loud and<\/p>\n
            distinct voice once and once only no words<\/p>\n
            or phrase being repeated.     No punctuation<\/p>\n
            stop being mentioned and no spelling of<\/p>\n
            any word being given. The passage to be<\/p>\n
            dictated is marked into portions of one<\/p>\n
            minute duration and each of those is sub<\/p>\n
            divided into portions of a quarter minutes<\/p>\n
            duration. The reader with a watch in hand<\/p>\n
            ( a watch provided with a second hand) will<\/p>\n
WPC.37133 \/2007               3<\/span><\/p>\n
            be able to notice at each quarter minute<\/p>\n
            how far he is adhering strictly to the speed.<\/p>\n
            An oblique line will mark the first. Second<\/p>\n
            and third quarter minute and two oblique<\/p>\n
            lines will mark the completion of one<\/p>\n
            minute. The numerals in the margin will<\/p>\n
            mark the complete minute. It is important<\/p>\n
            that the dictation should be uniform. (It is<\/p>\n
            not enough that the whole passage is<\/p>\n
            dictated in the time allowed.)”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
      2. Reference is also made to the provisions contained in<\/p>\n
Ext.P5 providing for deduction of marks for mistakes committed<\/p>\n
in the dictation test. 1\/4th of a mark is deducted for each word<\/p>\n
omitted or added. Half mark is deducted for each wrong word.<\/p>\n
It is of utmost importance that the candidates are in a position to<\/p>\n
hear the passage dictated clearly and without any disturbance.<\/p>\n
The Public Service Commission should have ensured that the<\/p>\n
dictation test was conducted without any external disturbance.<\/p>\n
At any rate having been apprised of the fact that there was an<\/p>\n
intrusive disturbance by way of the municipal siren blaring at<\/p>\n
close proximity to the place where the dictation test was being<\/p>\n
WPC.37133 \/2007               4<\/span><\/p>\n
held, the Commission should have taken steps to conduct a fresh<\/p>\n
dictation test atleast for the benefit of the first batch of students<\/p>\n
who were subjected to the dictation test from 8.00 a.m. to 8.05<\/p>\n
a.m. Ext.P7 complaint was submitted immediately after the test.<\/p>\n
Ext.P8 fax report would evidence that the complaint was sent on<\/p>\n
the date of dictation test itself. Another complaint was given by<\/p>\n
yet another candidate as Exts. P9 and P10.            The petitioner<\/p>\n
submitted Ext.P11 before the Chairman on 8.10.2007. The writ<\/p>\n
petition was filed when it was found that the Public Service<\/p>\n
Commission was not willing to conduct a fresh dictation test.<\/p>\n
      3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Public Service<\/p>\n
Commission.     The relevant portion of the said counter affidavit<\/p>\n
reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
        ” It is most respectfully submitted that the Public<\/p>\n
        Service Commission had directed its Secretary, to<\/p>\n
        conduct an enquiry in this regard. Accordingly the<\/p>\n
        Secretary   conducted      an    enquiry,    obtained<\/p>\n
        statements of Sri.Karunakaran, the District Officer,<\/p>\n
        Kerala Public Service Commission, Kasaragod,<\/p>\n
        Sri.A.Karunakara, Head Master GHSS Kasaragod,<\/p>\n
        who was the Chief Superintendent, Sri.Ajith<\/p>\n
        Kumar, Section Officer, Kerala Public Service<\/p>\n
WPC.37133 \/2007               5<\/span><\/p>\n
       Commission, District Office, Kasaragod, who was<\/p>\n
       the        Additional     Chief       Superintendent,<\/p>\n
       Smt.M.Geetha, Confidential Assistant, Collectorate,<\/p>\n
       Kasaragod, who was appointed as the dictator for<\/p>\n
       the dictation test held on 6.10.2007 and also the<\/p>\n
       petitioner and Sri.Madhusoodanan, the petitioner’s<\/p>\n
       brother.      As   per   the  statements    of  Chief<\/p>\n
       Superintendent, Additional Chief Superintendent<\/p>\n
       and the dictator, the blaring of siren lasted only for<\/p>\n
       about 30 seconds and it was not too loud to give<\/p>\n
       any trouble to the candidates. More over, at that<\/p>\n
       time the dictator had read the passage in a very<\/p>\n
       loud voice so that siren call shall not cause any<\/p>\n
       disturbance to the candidates to take down the<\/p>\n
       dictation.     The Chief Superintendent at the<\/p>\n
       examination       centre,   Sri.Karanakara,    GHSS<\/p>\n
       Kasaragod, had also reported that at the time of<\/p>\n
       dictation he was present in the hall, behind the<\/p>\n
       candidates and the dictation was clearly audible to<\/p>\n
       him even at the time of siren call. It is also<\/p>\n
       reported that none of the candidates who attended<\/p>\n
       the dictation test in the 1st batch had raised any<\/p>\n
       complaints regarding the siren call during the<\/p>\n
       dictation or after the end of dictation.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
              It is most respectfully submitted that as per<\/p>\n
       the statements of the Chief Superintendent,<\/p>\n
WPC.37133 \/2007               6<\/span><\/p>\n
       Additional Chief Superintendent and the dictator<\/p>\n
       who were the officers in charge of the dictation<\/p>\n
       test, the siren call from the Municipality during the<\/p>\n
       dictation held for the 1st batch which lasted for only<\/p>\n
       about 30 seconds and the sound had not caused<\/p>\n
       any hardship to the candidates as the dictator had<\/p>\n
       read the passage loudly so that the candidates<\/p>\n
       could take down the dictation without any<\/p>\n
       difficulty. The dictation was clearly audible to each<\/p>\n
       and every candidate at the time of siren call also<\/p>\n
       and as such there was no disturbance during the<\/p>\n
       dictation.   Any of the candidates including the<\/p>\n
       petitioner did not complain at the time of dictation<\/p>\n
       that the passage read out was not audible to them.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
               It is most respectfully submitted that the<\/p>\n
       Secretary,    had     submitted    a  report    dated<\/p>\n
       19.11.2007 to the Commission. The finding was<\/p>\n
       that the dictation test was conducted in a smooth<\/p>\n
       and fair manner and as such there was no need to<\/p>\n
       cancel the test held on 6.10.2007.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
     A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
     4.       I  heard   learned    counsel   for   the   petitioner<\/p>\n
Sri.Kaleeswaran Raj and the learned Standing Counsel for the<\/p>\n
WPC.37133 \/2007               7<\/span><\/p>\n
Public Service Commission Sri. Alexander Thomas.<\/p>\n
     5.   Pursuant to my order dated 14.2.2008 Sri.Alexander<\/p>\n
Thomas made available the report dated 19.11.2007 submitted<\/p>\n
by the Secretary of the Commission and referred to in the<\/p>\n
counter affidavit. I have gone through the said report as also<\/p>\n
copies of the statement appended to the same.\n<\/p>\n
     6. Sri.Kaleeswaran Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner<\/p>\n
submits that the Public Service Commission Manual lays down the<\/p>\n
manner in which the dictation test was to be held. It is admitted<\/p>\n
that the municipal siren was blaring atleast during a portion of<\/p>\n
the time when the test was held. Errors while transcribing the<\/p>\n
dictated passage obviously lead to negative marks.        All the<\/p>\n
candidates are    expected to be dealt with uniformly in any<\/p>\n
selection conducted by the Public Service Commission.      There<\/p>\n
was intrusive external disturbance by way of the municipal siren<\/p>\n
blaring during the period from 8.00 a.m. to 8.05 a.m., the Public<\/p>\n
Service Commission should have in all fairness taken a decision<\/p>\n
to conduct a fresh dictation test as such or atleast for those<\/p>\n
candidates who     felt that their performance was detrimentally<\/p>\n
affected on account of the external disturbance.<\/p>\n
WPC.37133 \/2007                8<\/span><\/p>\n
      7. It has to be found from the materials on record that the<\/p>\n
municipal siren was blaring for a period        of time when the<\/p>\n
dictation was being held. But the question is whether the Public<\/p>\n
Service Commission should be directed to conduct a fresh<\/p>\n
dictation test. Though there is no specific provision as such<\/p>\n
brought to my notice, governing a situation of this kind, I do not<\/p>\n
have any doubt in my mind that it would be open this court to<\/p>\n
direct the Public Service Commission to conduct a fresh dictation<\/p>\n
test, if this court is compelled to come to the conclusion that part<\/p>\n
of the selection conducted by the Public Service Commission is to<\/p>\n
be held as vitiated on account of the intrusive external<\/p>\n
disturbance which was so perversive as to the render selection<\/p>\n
the itself as bad. Mr.Alexander Thomas, learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
Public Service Commission submits that the complaint filed by<\/p>\n
some of the candidates including the petitioner was taken note of<\/p>\n
seriously by the Commission and it is therefore that the Secretary<\/p>\n
of the Commission himself was authorised to conduct an enquiry.<\/p>\n
The secretary submitted a report on 19.11.2007.          Appended<\/p>\n
along with the report was the statement given by the Chief<\/p>\n
Invigilator for the dictation test held on 6.10.2007, Sri. A<\/p>\n
WPC.37133 \/2007               9<\/span><\/p>\n
Karunakaran, Headmaster of the Girls Higher Secondary School,<\/p>\n
Kasaragod, statement of the person who conducted the dictation<\/p>\n
Smt. M.Geetha, Confidential Assistant in the Collectorate at<\/p>\n
Kasaragod.      Sri. Ajith Kumar, Section Officer in the District<\/p>\n
Public Service Commission office at Kasaragod and a statement<\/p>\n
of the petitioner as such.      Reference is also made to the<\/p>\n
statement    given by P.Madhusoodanan, brother of the petitioner<\/p>\n
who also happens to be an Assistant in the Kannur District Office<\/p>\n
of the Public Service Commission. The report shows that siren<\/p>\n
was blaring for a short time during the period of dictation. But<\/p>\n
apparently, Smt.Geetha, the person who conducted the dictation<\/p>\n
made a provision to counter the said external disturbance by<\/p>\n
increasing her voice to enable her to be heard by the candidates<\/p>\n
during the period of dictation. She had also slowed down the<\/p>\n
speed of the dictation during that time to enable the candidates<\/p>\n
to follow her voice better. Siren was blaring for about 30 seconds<\/p>\n
and the dictation lasted for five minutes.     It is true that the<\/p>\n
petitioner had approached the Chief Invigilator after the test but<\/p>\n
apparently her anxiety was whether she had written her register<\/p>\n
number appropriately.      The complaint against the disturbance<\/p>\n
WPC.37133 \/2007               10<\/span><\/p>\n
caused by the blaring of the siren was raised only well after the<\/p>\n
test itself was over. The Public Service Commission came to the<\/p>\n
legitimate conclusion that the disturbance complained of cannot<\/p>\n
be characterised as one which should justify the conduct of a<\/p>\n
fresh dictation test as such.\n<\/p>\n
      8. Having heard counsel on both sides and having perused<\/p>\n
the report submitted by the Secretary of the Public Service<\/p>\n
Commission and the statement appended thereto, I am of the<\/p>\n
view that there are no circumstances in the instant case which<\/p>\n
would justify a direction to the Public Service Commission to<\/p>\n
conduct a fresh dictation test as such. I take note of the fact that<\/p>\n
the Public Service Commission had responded to the complaint<\/p>\n
filed by the petitioner and some other candidates and an enquiry<\/p>\n
was conducted by a responsible officer, no less than the<\/p>\n
Secretary of the Commission. I do not also find any reason why<\/p>\n
the Chief Invigilator who happens to be the headmaster in a<\/p>\n
Government Higher Secondary school and the person who<\/p>\n
conducted the dictation, a Confidential Assistant working in the<\/p>\n
District Collectorate should give either a diluted      or twisted<\/p>\n
version as regards the perversiveness of the disturbance that was<\/p>\n
WPC.37133 \/2007               11<\/span><\/p>\n
caused at the time of dictation. Mr.Kaleeswaram Raj refers to<\/p>\n
the well settled principle   in administrative law that a person<\/p>\n
cannot be a judge to his own cause, to contend for the position<\/p>\n
that if the Public Service Commission was to deal with the<\/p>\n
complaint in a serious manner then an enquiry into the complaint<\/p>\n
should have been conducted by an external agency and not the<\/p>\n
Secretary of the Commission.       Notwithstanding the proposition<\/p>\n
of law as such, I find it difficult to accept the submission.  The<\/p>\n
Commission was not required to act as a judge of a cause. It is a<\/p>\n
constitutional body entrusted with the conduct of selection to<\/p>\n
various public services in the State.      There would be several<\/p>\n
vicissitudes, which it would be required to deal with in the course<\/p>\n
of discharging its function and it would not be possible to lay<\/p>\n
down any strait-jacket formula or guideline for dealing with each<\/p>\n
one of the contingencies. The manual contains the manner in<\/p>\n
which the dictation test was to be held and in an ideal situation<\/p>\n
the dictation would have to be conducted in a quiet place with a<\/p>\n
person who conducts the dictation, dictating the words with such<\/p>\n
speed and regulation that 400 words are dictated over a period of<\/p>\n
five minutes.  But external disturbance in the form of blaring of<\/p>\n
WPC.37133 \/2007               12<\/span><\/p>\n
municipal siren in a not too distant place is obviously not a<\/p>\n
contingency that could be specifically provided for in the Public<\/p>\n
Service Commission Manual. Therefore, when the siren started<\/p>\n
blaring, the person who conducted the dictation apparently had<\/p>\n
raised her voice and had also slowed down the speed of the<\/p>\n
dictation.  This obviously made an allowance for the external<\/p>\n
disturbance.     The question is whether the Public Service<\/p>\n
Commission is right in concluding that there are no circumstances<\/p>\n
which warrant a fresh dictation test as such. Unless I am in a<\/p>\n
position to find that the Public Service Commission has acted in<\/p>\n
a   completely    irresponsible  manner    or   had   shirked   it’s<\/p>\n
responsibility in deciding not to conduct a fresh dictation test<\/p>\n
inspite of the presence of over whelming material to the contra,<\/p>\n
I would not be justified in interfering with the selection as such.<\/p>\n
In my view, the Public Service Commission had acted promptly in<\/p>\n
instituting an enquiry to be conducted by the Secretary of the<\/p>\n
Commission and the decision taken by the Commission to accept<\/p>\n
the report of the Secretary does not seem to be vitiated in any<\/p>\n
manner.\n<\/p>\n
      For all these reasons, I do not find my way to give any<\/p>\n
WPC.37133 \/2007              13<\/span><\/p>\n
direction to the Public Service Commission to conduct a fresh<\/p>\n
dictation test.      The writ petition is bereft of merit and<\/p>\n
accordingly, it is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                                      V. GIRI, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
pmn\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Prameela P vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 19 August, 2008 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. […]<\/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-247455","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPrameela P vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 19 August, 2008 - 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\/prameela-p-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-19-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Prameela P vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 19 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prameela-p-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-19-august-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-07T23:59:54+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prameela-p-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-19-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prameela-p-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-19-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Prameela P vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 19 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-07T23:59:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prameela-p-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-19-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2423,\"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\\\/prameela-p-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-19-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prameela-p-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-19-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prameela-p-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-19-august-2008\",\"name\":\"Prameela P vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 19 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-07T23:59:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prameela-p-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-19-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prameela-p-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-19-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prameela-p-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-19-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Prameela P vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 19 August, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Prameela P vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 19 August, 2008 - 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\/prameela-p-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-19-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Prameela P vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 19 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prameela-p-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-19-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-07T23:59:54+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prameela-p-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-19-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prameela-p-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-19-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Prameela P vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 19 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-07T23:59:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prameela-p-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-19-august-2008"},"wordCount":2423,"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\/prameela-p-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-19-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prameela-p-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-19-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prameela-p-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-19-august-2008","name":"Prameela P vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 19 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-07T23:59:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prameela-p-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-19-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prameela-p-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-19-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prameela-p-vs-kerala-public-service-commission-on-19-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Prameela P vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 19 August, 2008"}]},{"@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\/247455","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=247455"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/247455\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=247455"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=247455"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=247455"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}