LIGIKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, belonging to Ezhava community, entitled to reservation, and placed 1st in the Supplementary List in the selection to the post of Excise Inspector in the Excise Department undertaken by the Kerala Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission"), unsuccessfully challenged denial of his placement in the Main List before the learned single Judge. The appellant claimed that he having obtained a total of 79 marks, i.e., 61 in the written test, 9 in the interview and 9 for reason of his 'C' Certificate in N.C.C. and participation in Sports, was entitled to be placed in the Main List. The specific contention was that many of the Ezhava candidates placed in the positions reserved for the community have secured lesser total marks than the appellant.

(2.) The learned single Judge took note of 2013 Lab IC/151 VII the contention of the Commission based on Rule 12 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure and found that the appellant's placement in the Supplementary List was proper and justified and dismissed the claim of the appellant; also for the further reason of delay of two years in approaching the Court.

(3.) The contention of the appellant is that he having obtained more total marks, was entitled to be placed in the Main List itself, over and above the persons who have obtained lesser marks than him. We notice that though the appellant has produced along with the writ petition the rank list, which would show the marks obtained by each candidate in the Main List and the Supplementary List, none of the persons over whom the appellant seeks placement in the Main List has been impleaded in the writ petition. We also notice that the appellant's claim is that he obtained 79 marks; but it is to be noticed that the Main List included those candidates only who have secured more than 68 marks in the written test which as contended by the Commission is the assessment of merit. Having selected the number of persons at par with available number of vacancies, interview is conducted and weightage marks as provided in the Government Orders are applied. It is on the basis of the total marks obtained in the written test, interview and weightage that the rank list is prepared. However, the rank list is prepared from among the candidates who have been included in the main list as per the marks obtained in the written test, which is taken as the merit. Admittedly, the appellant had only obtained 61 marks and all the candidates in the ranked list (Exhibit P4) produced by the appellant, have obtained marks above that of the appellant in the written test. The Supplementary List has been prepared to ensure the filling up of the reserved vacancies; if there is no eligible candidate available in the main list. The over all marks obtained by the appellant, who has been relegated to the Supplementary List by reason of his having not been meritorious enough in the written test for being placed in the main list; cannot be taken into account to place him over and above those persons who have been included in the main list on the basis of merit. The procedure of the Commission as envisaged under Rule 12 and upheld by the learned single Judge, according to us, is unassailable. The learned single Judge has also further noticed that despite publication of the list in 2009, the appellant has thought it fit to challenge the list only in the year 2011. The challenge, as we noticed above, is also without the affected parties in the party array.