High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2018-01-22Writ petition dismissed

Asha K. Mathew v. Kerala Public Service Commission

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 18024 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. ASHA
Judgment Date: 2018-01-22
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is dismissed. The court held that the PSC’s method of selection, being dependent on the post’s nature and its rules, is permissible and that no illegality or arbitrariness was shown in conducting only an interview for the position in question.
Final Disposition: Writ petition dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Asha K. Mathew

Respondents

Kerala Public Service Commission represented by the Secretary, PSC, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram-695004
Sindhu P.K
Bindu P.K
Asha Sam Varghese
Anish John

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Kaleeswaram Raj
• Varun C. Vijay Kumar
• Aruna

Counsels for Respondents

• P. C. Sasidharan
• M. R. Sasith
• P. C. Haridas
• Asok M Cherian

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, Asha K. Mathew, challenged the Kerala Public Service Commission’s method for appointing a Sheristadar in the Sub Court/Senior Superintendent post under a special recruitment for Scheduled Tribe candidates. Ext. P1 notified a single vacancy and stated that vacancies reported for ST candidates during the rank list period would be considered; the petitioner ranked 11 in Ext. P9 (published 24.04.2016). The selection process allegedly relied solely on an interview, with no written test, and the petitioner claimed lack of transparency and arbitrariness, alleging that higher academic marks should have weighed in the ranking. The PSC argued that its Rules of Procedure permit multiple examinations and that marks for interview are fixed (20%) when the selection is test-based; when selection is interview-based, marks are out of 100, and the final rank was determined accordingly. The petitioner contended the two-minute interview and casual questioning suggested bias and favoritism; she alleged irregularities in the process. The court observed that the selection involved only an interview and noted the PSC’s discretion to determine the basis of marking under its rules. Relying on precedents, the court held that the method of selection depends on the post’s nature, and there was no illegality in the process. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Provisions of Law Cited

PSC Rules of Procedure

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Estoppel
Method of selection depends on the nature of the post

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submitted that the selection for the post of Sheristadar was conducted on the basis of an interview alone, with no written test, and that the process lacked transparency and objectivity. She argued that academic qualifications and marks should have been considered in the ranking, given the candidate’s performance in SSLC, Plus Two, B.Com, and LL.B. The absence of a written test and the claim that the two-minute interview was irrelevant to the post were central to her challenge. She urged the court to require a transparent selection process with a balanced assessment of merit, including academic credentials, to ensure fairness.

Contentions of Respondents

The PSC defended its approach, invoking its Rules of Procedure, which authorize various selection methods (written test, practical, physical, oral tests, or any combination). It noted that 20% marks are fixed for interview when a written test is involved; in interview-only selections, the marks are out of 100. It argued that the rank list (Ext. P9) was prepared based on the interview marks, with the first four ranks reflecting vacancies. The PSC claimed no illegality in the process and relied on precedent allowing interview-based selections depending on the post and rules.

Cited Precedents (6)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sarojakumari v. Helen Thilakom	2017 (4) KLT 570 (SC)	Mentioned Only	Cited to discuss estoppel arguments but not adopted due to differences in factual context (petition involved only interview vs. cases with written tests).
Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan and Others	(1981) 4 SCC 159	Positive	Recognized that it is not illegal to allocate 100% marks for interview; used by respondents to justify interview-based selection in this case.
Ajay Hasia and Others v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Others	(1981) 1 SCC 722	Distinguished	Cited to argue limitations of relying on interview marks when a written test is involved; distinguished due to absence of written testing in the present case.
Ashok Kumar Yadav and Others v. State of Haryana	AIR 1987 SC 454	Distinguished	Related to cap on interview marks; distinguished as not applicable to an interview-only context in this case.
Mohinder Sain Garg v. State of Punjab and Others	1991 (1) SCC 6621	Distinguished	Argued for limits on interview marks; distinguished on the facts of the present case.
Miss Nishi Maghu and Others	1980 (4) SCC 951	Distinguished	Not controlling for the same reasons as above; different factual matrix.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Asha K. Mathew v. Kerala Public Service Commission and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 2ND MAGHA, 1939** ## **WP(C).No. 18024 of 2016** ## **PETITIONER** **ASHA K. MATHEW, AGED 27 YEARS, W/O. ARUN ANTONY, KIZHAZKKEKARAYIL, MUTTOM P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI-685 587.** **BY ADVS.SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY KUM.A.ARUNA.** ## **RESPONDENT** **1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERIVCE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.** ## **ADDL. R2 TO R5 IMPLEADED** **Addl.2. SINDHU P.K, THACHETTUPARAMBIL, CHAMAKKALA, CHAMAKKALA P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 603.** - **Addl.3. BINDU P.K, THACHETTUPARAMBIL, CHAMAKKALA, CHAMAKKALA P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 603.** - **Addl.4. ASHA SAM VARGHESE, AREETHADATHIL HOUSE, CHOVOOR, CHOVOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM-686586.** - **Addl.5. ANISH JOHN, THENGUMTHOTTATHIL, MOONNILAVU, CHOVOOR, KOTTAYAM-686586.** **ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 08-09-2016 IN I.A 14157/2016.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC. ADDL.R2 & ADDL.R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH ADDL.R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS ADDL.R5 BY ADVS. SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN** **SMT.S.RAKHEE** **SRI.K.JANARDHANA SHENOY.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-01-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Hr....** **WP(C).No. 18024 of 2016 ©** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** - **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 29-4-2015 PUBLISHED BY THE PSC.** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10-7-2015.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21-3-2016.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE SSLC MARK LIST PERTAINING TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PLUS TWO MARK LIST OF THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE APPLICANT IN B.COM DEGREE.** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE APPLICANT IN DEGREE IN L.L.B.** - **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST FOR THE POST OF SHERISTADAR IN SUB COURT/SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT IN DISTRICT COURT IN THE SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY DEPARTMENT (CATEGORY NUMBER 102/2015).** - **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT CHART DOWNLOADED FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE PSC.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** ## **NIL** **//TRUE COPY// P.S TO JUDGE.** **Hr.....** ## **P.V.ASHA J.** **-----------------------------------W.P.(C).No.18024 of 2016 -------------------------------------** Dated this the 22[nd] day of January, 2018 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is a candidate who appeared for the selection for appointment to the post of Sheristadar pursuant to Ext.P1 notification and was ranked 11 in the rank list. 2. The Kerala Public Service Commission (in short 'PSC') issued Ext.P1 notification dated 29.04.2015 inviting application for appointment to the post of Sheristadar in Sub Court/Senior Superintendent in District Court in the Subordinate Judiciary Department by way of special recruitment of Scheduled Tribe candidates, by direct recruitment. Number of vacancy notified was one. It was stated that vacancies reported to PSC for special recruitment from W.P.(C).No.18024 of 2016 2 Scheduled Tribe during the currency of the rank list also would be considered. 3. Petitioner submitted her application and as per Ext.P3 call letter, she was directed to appear for verification of certificates on 23.07.2015. Thereafter, as per Ext.P4 call letter dated 21.03.2016, she was directed to appear for an interview on 08.04.2016. Petitioner appeared for the interview. Ext.P9 rank list was published on 24.04.2016 in which she was included as Rank No.11. 4. Alleging that the method of appointment was interview alone and no weightage was given for academic marks, petitioner filed this writ petition. Petitioner alleged that, the rank list was not prepared after adopting a transparent procedure of selection and there were serious irregularities in the process of selection by awarding 100% marks for interview. 5. Petitioner stated that there were only W.P.(C).No.18024 of 2016 3 15 candidates who appeared for the interview held on 08.04.2016. There was no written test and the process of selection consisted of only verification of certificates and interview. Petitioner claims that, she was passed S.S.L.C, Plus Two, B.Com Degree and Degree in Law. She passed S.S.L.C with 58% marks, Plus Two with 74% marks, B.Com with 68% marks and Law Degree with 61% marks. Therefore, petitioner claims that in case academic qualification and marks were considered she had a fair chance for getting higher rank in the selection. Petitioner further states that the petitioner's interview lasted only for two minutes and questions were asked only in a casual manner, which did not have any relation to the subject. Petitioner alleges that PSC arbitrarily fixed the method of selection as interview and therefore the selection was not proper. It is stated that, interview was a mere mockery and the selection was vitiated by arbitrariness and favouritism; the W.P.(C).No.18024 of 2016 4 candidates who got higher marks were those who were favoured. Petitioner claimed that, if a written test was conducted, the PSC should have assessed the candidates on the basis of academic qualification and merit in it. 6. The Kerala Public Service Commission has filed a counter affidavit. According to them, as per the Rules of procedure, the Commission may conduct all or any one or more of the examinations like Written Examinations, Practical Test, Physical Efficiency Test, Oral Test (Interview) and any other test or examination, which the Commission may deem fit to hold, in order to assess the mark of candidates, for recruitment to a service or post. Separate marks are allotted to the interview only when the selection is finalised by written test and interview. 20% marks is fixed for interview. In the case of selection of candidates on the basis of interview alone, the marks for interview should be 5 W.P.(C).No.18024 of 2016 out of 100. It is stated that, there were 23 applications received for the post. 15 candidates were admitted for OTR verification held on 23.07.2015. Thereafter the interview was conducted on 08.04.2016 and all the 15 candidates appeared for the interview. 7. Based on the marks in the interview, Ext.P9 rank list was brought into force from 22.04.2016 and in which the petitioner is Rank No.11. It is also pointed out that, Rank Nos.1,2,3 and 4 were advised against the four vacancies, which were reported. According to the 1[st] respondent, it is the prerogative of the PSC to fix the “basis of marking” as per the PSC Rules of procedure. The grace marks are awarded on the basis of academic marks only in the case of eligible posts. 8. The party respondents have also filed counter affidavit refuting the allegations of petitioners and supporting the stand of the 1[st] 6 W.P.(C).No.18024 of 2016 respondent. It is pointed out that no body is impleaded with the allegation that particular candidates were favoured by a particular official or authority. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the party respondents relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in _**Sarojakumari v. Helen Thilakom**_ [2017 (4) KLT 570 (SC)] and argued that petitioner who participated in the selection is estopped from challenging the selection after he found himself unsuccessful, in the light of a series of judgments of the Apex Court and this Court. 10. The learned counsel for the party respondents also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in _**Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan and Others**_ [(1981) 4 SCC 159). In Paragraph 6 therein, it is held that there is nothing illegal in allocating 100% marks for interview. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner W.P.(C).No.18024 of 2016 7 relying on the judgments in _**Ajay Hasia and Others v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Others**_ [1981 (1) SCC 722], _**Ashok Kumar Yadav and Others v. State of Haryana**_ [AIR 1987 SC 454], _**Mohinder Sain Garg v. State of Punjab and Others**_ [1991 (1) SCC 6621] as well as _**Miss Nishi Maghu and Others**_ [1980 (4) SCC 951], argued that not more than 12.2% marks can be allocated for interview. 12. I have considered the pleadings and contentions on both sides. The selection involved in the present case consisted of only an interview. The judgments relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are in cases where there were written test as well as interview. At any rate it is settled law that the method to be adopted in a process of selection, percentage of marks to be fixed for interview, etc, depends on the nature of the post to which selection is made. 13. The petitioner cannot claim that academic marks shall also be reckoned for the purpose W.P.(C).No.18024 of 2016 8 of selection on the ground that she secured good marks in all the examinations. The Public Service Commission has stated that as per Rules of procedure of PSC, the authority to determine the method of selection is Public Service Commission. They have considered the matter and came to the conclusion that the selection should be finalised on the basis of marks in the interview. The notification is for Special Recruitment of Scheduled Tribe candidates. There is no provision which obliges the PSC either to conduct written test and interview in all selections or to allocate separate marks for academic qualifications. In the absence of any such rule, it can not be said that there is any illegality. 14. Considering the nature of the posts PSC found it fit to conduct only interview. Petitioner appeared in the interview without raising any objection. In the light of the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents, I do not find W.P.(C).No.18024 of 2016 9 any illegality in the process of selection. 15. The judgment of this Court dated 19.09.2014 in O.P.(KAT) No.306/2014 is also against the petitioner. In that case the petitioner asserted that an OMR test should have been conducted for selection to the post of LPSA in Kannada language. The Division Bench approved the action of the PSC which decided to conduct the selection by adopting interview as the basis in accordance with the Rules of procedure. Moreover petitioner who chose to challenge the selection only after he found himself unsuccessful is estopped from challenging the selection. In the above circumstances, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. Sd/- **P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.** ww