Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JAYASREENIVAS M. versus KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


JAYASREENIVAS M. v. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION - WP(C) No. 14655 of 2006(T) [2006] RD-KL 1537 (8 November 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 14655 of 2006(T)

1. JAYASREENIVAS M.,
... Petitioner

2. JOMON S.,

3. MANOJKUMAR M.,

4. MUHAMMED SHAFI P.,

Vs

1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.P.SREEKUMAR

For Respondent :SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN

Dated :08/11/2006

O R D E R

K.K. DENESAN, J.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 14655 OF 2006 T = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Dated this the 8th November, 2006



J U D G M E N T

The petitioners applied for the post of Sub Inspector of Police (Trainees) in the General Executive Branch. They appeared for the written test conducted by the 1st respondent. Later on, they were called for physical efficiency test and verification of physical measurements.

2. The physical measurements of the petitioners were taken on 25-5-2006. The minimum height required is 165.10 cms. According to the petitioners their height is not less than 166 cms. But according to the respondent-Commission the height of the petitioners on measurement taken on 25-5-2006, was found less than the minimum prescribed. The petitioners wanted re- verification of the measurement. The request was allowed. But on re-verification also no change in the measurement first taken, was noticed. According to the petitioners, they filed Ext. P2 representation collectively before the Secretary to the Commission. WPC No. 14655/2006 -2- It is pertinent to note that Ext. P2 does not bear any date. It is not understood whether Ext. P2 was in fact received by the Commission.

3. The main contention urged by the petitioners is that the respondent-Commission did not use the proper equipment/device to measure the height of the candidates. It is alleged that the instrument used was "a wooden scale fitted on platform with a horizontal piece fitted on the scale to mark the height". The petitioners would further allege that the horizontal piece was not parallel to the platform and that defect had resulted in wrong measurement.

4. Though the petitioners would contend that the above defect was brought to the notice of those who were put on duty by the Commission, Ext. P2 representation said to have been filed by them does not, in fact, refer to the so called defect pointed out in Ground 'E' or in paragraph 3 of the writ petition. What is said in Ext. P2 is that the marker of the scale was not working properly and the reading given was less than the actual height.

5. Since the petitioners raised a contention that WPC No. 14655/2006 -3- the equipment was not properly certified by the officers of the Weights and Measures Department in terms of the relevant Act, the Senior Inspector, Legal Metrology, Thiruvanthapuram as also the Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala were impleaded as the additional respondents. The Inspector, Legal Metrology who is the additional 3rd respondent in office as on the date of service of notice has filed a counter affidavit. Since he has sworn to the affidavit based on the records available and on information received from the Chief Inspector who had issued the requisite certificate, an affidavit has been sworn to by that incumbent also. In the affidavit thus filed what is stated is as follows:

"On 22-5-2006, the Kerala Public Service Commission authorities produced five 3 metre steel tapes and ten 2 metre steel tapes fitted on wooden stands for verification in my office. I have verified those tapes with the standard length measure kept in the Legal Metrology Office. It has been found that those steel tapes were conformed with the specification laid down by the Part VII Schedule VI of standards of Weights & Measures General Rules 1987. So the same were verified, stamped and issued." Thereafter the certificate of verification was issued WPC No. 14655/2006 -4- on the same day to the Secretary, K.P.S.C. It is this certificate which has been produced as Ext. R1(c) along with the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent- Commission.

6. It is the contention of the petitioners that since the platform was not properly fitted, that has led to errors while taking the correct measurement. According to the petitioners, the department ought to have verified before certification not only the correctness of the steel tapes fitted on the wooden stand but also the platform which formed a single unit for the purpose of taking the measurement. But no such objection appears to have been raised by the petitioners before the respondent-Commission. If such a complaint was raised at the earliest opportunity, that should find a place, at least when the petitioners jointly filed Ext. P2 representation after the measurements were taken. It is not known when Ext. P2 was filed before the Commission. It can only be after the whole thing was over, and if even such a complaint does not specifically state the precise nature of the defect in the measuring equipment, it will not be WPC No. 14655/2006 -5- possible for the Commission to correct mistakes, if any, and re-do the exercise, before proceeding with the selection process, further.

7. The Commission has stated in its affidavit that it did use a standard measurement machine, which was duly certified by the competent authority under law for taking the measurement of candidates. The Commission is having 5 measurement stands, which was duly certified by the Controller of Legal Metrology Department for measurement of height upto 204 cms. and 10 measurement stands for height measurement upto 160 cms. The Commission further states that the averment of the petitioners that the Commission has not used the standard measurement device, which is duly certified by the authorities, is incorrect. The measurement of the petitioners was taken by the Commission with the help of experts and it was subjected to a second measurement in the presence of the nominee of the Commission. Altogether about 1050 candidates participated in the physical measurement test conducted by the Commission. Nearly 500 candidates were subjected to physical measurement. Even on 25-5-2006 on which date the WPC No. 14655/2006 -6- petitioners participated for physical measurement, about 100 candidates participated. None of them, except the petitioners, raised the objection that the measurement taken was not correct.

8. In the light of the facts sworn to in the counter affidavits of the respondents, the only possible inference is that the measuring device was not faulty. The complaint raised in Ext. P2 was that the marker of the scale was not working properly. The defect attempted to be projected in the writ petition differs from the plea initially raised. The former one points to the improper working of the equipment whereas the present complaint finds fault with the device itself; a fault which is allegedly inherent in the device. An extra facility can be afforded to the petitioners, even by the replacement of another device, only if relevant facts and contentions were raised then and there. Then only in matters relating to correctness of physical measurements etc., the defect in the device, if at all there was any, can be rectified. The present argument of the petitioners appear to be the result of an after thought. In my WPC No. 14655/2006 -7- view, this is not a case where this Court will be justified in interfering under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the decision taken by the Commission or things that had physically taken place on 25-5-2006. The writ petition is dismissed. K.K. DENESAN

JUDGE

jan/-


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.