High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
SEENATH K., D/O. MOIDUTTY v. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION - WP(C) No. 32166 of 2006(D)  RD-KL 11495 (28 June 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMWP(C) No. 32166 of 2006(D)
1. SEENATH K., D/O. MOIDUTTY,
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,
1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
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
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, JUDGEvps WPC NO.32166/06 Page numbers
A.K. BASHEER, JUDGEOP NO.20954/00 WPC NO.32166/06 Page numbers
1ST MARCH, 2007
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.