ASOKAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN response to the notification issued by the Public service Commission for the post of Boat Lascars, the petitioners submitted their applications but they were not called for interview. Therefore they approached this Court with this Original Petition and obtained an ad interim order directing the Public Service Commission to interview them subject to the final decision in the case. Accordingly they were duly interviewed. The rank list consisting of about 299 candidates already made on the 28th of February, 1982 had a life of two years. IN pursuance of the interim direction made by this Court after the petitioners were interviewed, petitioners 4, 5,6, 8 and 9 were included in the rank list subject to the final decision in the original petition. Petitioners 1 to 3 and 7 were not even provisionally selected for inclusion in the rank list. Hence it is obvious that their cases do not deserve any further consideration.

(2.) SO far as petitioners 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 are concerned, it is obvious that if they were suo motu called for interview by the Public service Commission they would have got themselves included in the rank list. Mr. Kelu Nambiar, learned counsel appearing for the Public Service Commission, also told us that they would have been advised for appointment, as persons lower in the rank list have already been advised.

(3.) THE petitioners apart from contending that the choice of candidates for interview made as per Para. 8 to 11 is itself arbitrary, also stressed that no uniform age has been accepted as a principle for all communities. It was further contended that the relevant provision viz. , the second proviso to R. 5 (ii) itself is arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the constitution. We therefore propose to examine the contention that the second proviso to R. 5 (ii) of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure violates Art. 14 of the Constitution.