Sheeja U.M. v. Director of Collegiate Education, Kerala Public Service Commission and others

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU** **FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1941** **OP(KAT).No. 119 of 2019** **OA 2324/2016 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 02-05-2018** ## **PETITIONER/4TH PETITIONER** **SHEEJA U.M. AGED 40 YEARS W/O. SUDHEER KUMAR, RESIDENT OF ULLATTILMEETHAL, OLAVANNA P.O, KOZHIKODE, KERALA-673 019** **BY ADV. SMT.K.V.RASHMI** ## **- RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 3 AND PETITIONER 1 TO 3 AND 5** - **1 DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,VIKAS BHAVAN,THIRUVANATHAPURAM, KERALA-695 033** - **2 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 004** - **3 MAHESH P.C. S/O. CHANDRAN P.V, AGED 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT PULICKAL HOUSE, MYLELLAMPARA P.O, PUTHUPPADIO (VIA), KOZHIKODE (DIST) 673 586** - **4 ANTHONY K.P. S/O. K.A. POULOSE, KANNAPILLI HOUSE, KARAKODE P.O, MANIMOOLI VIA, MALAPPURAM, KERALA-679 333** - **5 SUNITHA MURALI** OP(KAT).119/2019 2 **AGED 39 YEARS, W/O. T. MADHAVANKUTTY, RESIDENT OF MADHAVAM, PALAPPURAM P.O, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD, KERALA-679 103** - **6 GANESH BABU** **AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. GOVINDAN K, RESIDENT OF GEETHA NIVAS, VATAKARA, MEPPAYIL P.O, KOZHIKODE, KERALA-673 104** - **7 ANITHA L.** **AGED 37 YEARS, W/O. C.G. RAMACHANDRAN, RESIDENT OF PUTHEN VEEDU (ATHIRA), CHEMMANATHOOR, PUNALOOR, KOLLAM, KERALA-691 305** SR.GP SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR **THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.3.2019, THE COURT ON 12.04.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** OP(KAT).119/2019 3 ## JUDGMENT ## A.M.Babu, J 1. Petitioner was the 4[th] applicant in the original application filed before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. She sought relief against the Kerala Public Service Commission, the 2[nd] respondent. The tribunal dismissed the original application. 2. Applications were invited by the 2[nd] respondent from eligible candidates for appointment as lecturers in the department of collegiate education in different subjects. The petitioner applied for the post of lecturer in zoology. She possessed the required educational and other qualifications. She got through the written examination conducted by the 2[nd] respondent. Her name was included in the published short list. The method adopted by the 2[nd] respondent for preparing the ranked list was to take into account the marks obtained in the written test, the marks awarded in the viva voce, 30% of the total marks secured in the qualifying examination and 10 marks as weightage OP(KAT).119/2019 4 for non-qualifying degrees. The above are admitted facts. 3. The petitioner contended as under : She did her post graduation in the then existing scheme called the 'yearly scheme'. The universities in Kerala introduced the scheme called the 'credit semester scheme' in post graduation courses in the second half of 1990s. Those who were in the semester system could score higher marks as examinations were conducted at the end of every four semester on shorter syllabi. The students in the semester scheme had an added advantage of scoring high marks in the internal evaluation, which system was not available to the students in the yearly scheme. It was therefore unjustifiable and irrational to treat the two categories of persons alike. It was unjust to add 30% of the marks secured in the qualifying examination to the marks secured in the written test and viva voce to prepare the ranked list. The 2[nd] respondent should review and re-fix the criterion for awarding such weightage. 4. Heard Smt.K.V.Rashmi, the learned counsel for the OP(KAT).119/2019 5 petitioner. 5. The tribunal missed the crux of the case. It decided the case as if the challenge was against giving a weightage considering the marks obtained in the qualifying examination. The tribunal relied on the decision of this court in Sajan J.Menon v. State of Kerala (2007 (4) KLT 126) to hold that giving credit to academic marks along with the marks obtained in the written test and interview would only increase the quality of selection. But that was not the challenge of the petitioner and others in the original application. They have stated in their original application that they have no contention that the Kerala Public Service Commission does have the power to grant weightage for the marks in the qualifying examination or that the grant of weightage is invalid (vide ground-A of the original application). What they challenged was treating the semester scheme candidates and the yearly scheme candidates as equals in the matter of grant of weightage for the marks obtained in the qualifying examination. It was in order to highlight their such OP(KAT).119/2019 6 contention they stated volumes in the original application as to how the candidates belonging to the semester scheme could score marks far higher than the marks obtainable by the candidates in the yearly scheme. Precisely, what was challenged was the decision of the second respondent to take into account the same percentage of marks in the qualifying examination as weightage for the candidates who did their post graduation in the semester scheme and those did it in the yearly scheme. This aspect was not decided by the tribunal. 6. But, still, we are not persuaded to admit the original petition. It is because the petitioner, and others who joined her in the original application, filed it only after taking part in the process of selection and only after finding that their names were not included in the ranked list. Having silently participated in the whole process of selection without agitating their contentions at any time before the selection process started, they cannot be heard to say that the ranked list already published should be OP(KAT).119/2019 7 disturbed. In this view of the matter, we decline to admit the original petition. We dismiss it. ## 7. Dismissed. **==> picture [333 x 176] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----**<br> Sd/-<br>V.CHITAMBARESH<br> Judge<br> Sd/-<br> A.M.BABU<br> Judge<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br> Mrcs/10.4. OP(KAT).119/2019 8 ## **APPENDIX** **EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **A TRUE COPY OF THE OA IN 2324/2016 FILED BEFORE THE KAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM WITH ANNEXURES.** **EXHIBIT P2** **A TRUE COPY OF THE IMPLEADING PETITION BEARING NO. 2725/2017 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 18/09/2017** **EXHIBIT P3** **A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 3.02.17** **EXHIBIT P4** **CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA NO. 2324/2016 PASSED BY THE KAT , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DATED 02/05/2018** /True copy/ P.S.To Judge