INDULEKHA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are the appellants. Common question arise in all these cases. We shall deal with the facts in O. P. 22276 of 1997. Kerala public Service Commission published a notification in the Kerala Gazette dated 4. 6. 1996 inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Veterinary surgeon Gr. II in the Animal Husbandry Department. PETITIONERS applied for the post notified. They took the written test held on 30. 5. 1997 along with 487 candidates. After assessing the merits of the candidates in the written test, the Public Service Commission published a short list containing 268 candidates, out of which 211 candidates were included in the main list and 57 candidates were included in the various supplementary lists. PETITIONERS were not included in any of the lists. Aggrieved by the same these Writ Petitions were preferred seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Public Service Commission to include the name of the petitioners also in the short list and to call them for interview for final selection to the post of Veterinary Surgeon Gr. II. Learned single Judge did not grant any of the reliefs prayed for. Aggrieved by the same these appeals have been preferred.

(2.) COUNSEL appearing for the appellants Sri. C. P. Sudhakara Prasad as well as Sri. Pirappancode V. Sreedharan Nair submitted that the Public Service Commission has committed a grave error in not including them in the short list. COUNSEL submitted as a matter of fact, at the time when the written test was conducted 526 vacancies of Veterinary Surgeon Gr. II in the animal Husbandry Department including the vacancies occupied by the provisional hands were available. Relying upon circular No. 20/86 dated 20. 9. 1986 counsel submitted when a written test is conducted the number of candidates to be included in the short list should be twice or thrice the number of candidates advised during three previous years. COUNSEL submitted since only 438 persons were available for recruitment pursuant to Ext. P1 notification, Public Service commission was duty bound to publish a short list containing all the 438 persons. COUNSEL submitted since Ext. P5 governed the field at the time when ext. P1 notification was issued, Public Service Commission has a statutory obligation to conduct the selection on the basis of Ext. P5 circular.

(3.) COUNSEL appearing for the Public Service Commission sri. O. V. Radhakrishnan on the other hand, submitted that the P. S. C. has got the freedom to weed out candidates on the basis of the marks awarded in the written test. COUNSEL took us exhaustively to the provisions of Kerala Public service Commission Rules of Procedure. Relying upon proviso to R. 5 (ii) counsel submitted that P. S. C. has got power to restrict the number of candidates to be called for interview on the basis of any one or more of the criteria which includes higher marks also. COUNSEL also made reference to R. 11 (iii) and submitted that the P. S. C. has got the right to select candidates on the basis of minimum or minima of marks for inclusion in the ranked list. COUNSEL further submitted as per R. 3 of Rules of procedure of the Public Service Commission, Commission is entrusted with the power to assess the marks of the candidates by conducting written test, oral test (interview) etc. Referring to circular No. 20/86 counsel submitted that the circular itself permits the Public Service Commission to take appropriate decision in each case taking all the relevant aspects of the selection into account and that decision taken by the P. S. C. to weed out candidates on the basis of the marks is not in violation of circular No. 20/86.