High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
K.RANGARAJAN, MEENAKSHI NIVAS v. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION - WP(C) No. 7641 of 2007(I)  RD-KL 4882 (7 March 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMWP(C) No. 7641 of 2007(I)
1. K.RANGARAJAN, MEENAKSHI NIVAS,
1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
2. DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC
For Petitioner :SRI.P.M.PAREETH
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. 7641 OF 2007
Dated this the 7th day of March, 2007
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner has applied to the post of Police Constable in the armed police battalion. After passing the written test, he was invited to participate in the physical efficiency test on February 23, 2007. According to the petitioner, he sustained an injury on his knee in the course of strenuous physical exercise in preparation for the test. On the scheduled day of the physical test, petitioner had submitted Ext.P2 request pointing out his inability to participate in the physical efficiency test because of the above injury. He had also produced Ext.P3 medical certificate to show that he was undergoing treatment for the injury sustained by him. The grievance of the petitioner is that Exts. P2 and P3 were not considered by the Officer in charge of the physical test. Therefore, petitioner was compelled to participate in the test with the injury, and consequently he failed in the test.
2. The prayer in this writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ or order to respondent WPC NO. 7641/07 Page numbers No.2 to permit the petitioner to participate in the physical efficiency test yet again, after accepting Exts. P2 & P3.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
3. It may be true that the petitioner might have suffered an injury on his knee while he was training in preparation to participate in the physical efficiency test. It is not indicated in Ext.P2 that the petitioner did actually suffer the injury while he was training. Admittedly, petitioner had submitted Ext.P2 on the day when the physical efficiency test was scheduled to be held. The fact that the petitioner had participated in the test indicates that his injury was not serious. Secondly, the Doctor, who has issued Ext.P3 certificate has only stated that the petitioner sustained Sprain MCL (Rt) Knee. Even assuming the above injury was serious, it was up to the officer concerned to decide whether the request made by the petitioner had to be accepted. Obviously, the Officer did not deem it appropriate to accede to the request of the petitioner.
4. I do not find any reason to allow the prayer made by the petitioner in this writ petition to issue a direction to the respondents to hold the physical test again on another day. Learned counsel has WPC NO. 7641/07 Page numbers pointed out that in the case of another similarly placed candidate, namely Sri. Jithesh (Reg.No. 109249) the respondents had postponed the date of physical test from February 13 to February 23. Petitioner has not stated under what circumstance such a postponement was given by the respondents. Undoubtedly it will be open to the competent authority to postpone the physical test for valid reasons. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents points out that if a request is made by a candidate to postpone the test to another day, which falls within the period when the test is scheduled to be held at the centre, some slight adjournment would be permitted to the extent possible, and that too only for valid reasons. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances, I do not find any reason to allow the prayer made by the petitioner in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
A.K. BASHEER, JUDGEvps WPC NO. 7641/07 Page numbers
KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGEOP NO. WPC NO. 7641/07 Page numbers
21st DECEMBER, 2006
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.