Kerala High Court
Surya S vs The State Of Kerala on 4 April, 2024
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1946
OP(KAT) NO. 362 OF 2021
ORDER DATED 29.09.2021 IN OA NO.438 OF 2020 OF KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/APPLICANT IN OA:
SURYA S., AGED 35 YEARS, W/O. MANU M., CHAITHRAM,
VILAKKUPPARA P. O., ANCHAL, KOLLAM, KERALA - 691312.
BY ADVS.
P.NANDAKUMAR
AMRUTHA SANJEEV
VIVEK VIJAYAKUMAR
SHEMA ELIZABETH SCARIA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN OA:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, FOREST AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.
2 THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, PALACE P. O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695004.
3 THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA -
689645.
BY ADV P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 19.03.2024, THE COURT ON 04.04.2024 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
OP(KAT) No.362/2021
..2..
JUDGMENT
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.
The applicant before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal
is before this Court challenging Ext.P1 order of the tribunal
dated 29.09.2021 in OA No.438 of 2020.
2. The original petitioner is a candidate, who
participated in the selection process conducted by the Kerala
Public Service Commission (PSC) for the post of Beat Forest
Officer in the Forest and Wildlife Department in
Pathanamthitta District. As per Annex.A1 notification dated
29.12.2017, the required minimum height for female
candidates for applying to the post is 157 cm. On physical
verification, she was having all requisite physical standards
except the required minimum height of 157 cm and hence, she
was expelled from the selection process. Challenging the
same, the petitioner approached the tribunal with the original
application. The tribunal, after consideration of the entire
issue, dismissed the original application stating that the PSC
being the competent authority to conduct the selection, was
..3..
empowered to devise the procedure for holding the selection
and that the petitioner could not satisfy the physical standards
for the post, as required in the notification. It was further
observed that on re-measurement conducted by the Appellate
Board also, she does not have the required height. Hence, this
original petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
as per Annex.A1 notification, the required minimum height for
female candidates to apply for the post is 157 cm. It is pointed
out that the petitioner qualified all other requirements during
the Physical Efficiency Test, however, the height of the
petitioner was measured as 156 cm. Thereafter, she filed an
appeal and on re-measurement, her height was measured as
156.5 cm. It is the submission of the learned counsel that in
another Physical Efficiency Test conducted by the PSC in the
year 2013 for the post of Reserve Conductor in the Kerala
State Road Transport Corporation, the height of the petitioner
was measured as 158 cm, who was included in the ranked list.
According to the learned counsel, the petitioner is having the
minimum required height and the removal of the petitioner
from the ranked list is not justifiable.
..4..
4. Learned Standing Counsel for the PSC submitted
that on measurement, the height of the petitioner was
recorded as 156 cm, which is 1 cm short of the required
height, and accordingly, she was found unfit by the Selection
Board. On appeal, she was provisionally admitted to the
Physical Efficiency Test subject to re-measurement. However,
on re-measurement, her height was recorded as 156.5 cm.
Learned Standing Counsel pointed out that physical
measurement is taken by a Board with Under
Secretary/Deputy Secretary of KPSC as the Board Chairman;
and the Board includes a Lecturer/Professor of Collegiate
Education Department as member; and further, standardized
equipments are used for physical measurement, which is
taken with utmost care. It is further submitted that re-
measurement was taken by a Board headed by a Member of
the PSC as the Board Chairman. According to the learned
Standing Counsel, as far as re-measurement is concerned, the
decision of the Board comprising the Member of PSC as
Chairman is final and it is on the basis of the rules or
procedure prescribed by the PSC that the selection process is
conducted. Since each selection is finalized following due
..5..
procedure, the result, if any, of the previous selections, cannot
be taken into account and the petitioner was removed from
the ranked list as she is not having the required height of 157
cm.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Standing Counsel for PSC and learned Government Pleader.
6. We are surprised how the height varies on re-
measurement when height is a mandatory condition in the
selection process conducted by the PSC. According to the
PSC, they are following standardized procedures using
standardized equipment for physical measurement and utmost
care is given while taking measurements. The required height
for the post, as notified, was 157 cm for female candidates.
Here, in the case of the petitioner, on initial measurement, her
height was recorded as 156 cm. On appeal, when re-
measurement was done by a Board headed by a Member,
KPSC, as Board Chairman, the height of the petitioner is
found to be 156.5 cm. That means, she fell short of 0.5 cm
from the required height of 157 cm.
7. It is an admitted case that the height of the
petitioner was measured at 158 cm in another selection
..6..
process conducted by the PSC in the year 2013 for
appointment to the post of Reserve Conductor in the Kerala
State Road Transport Corporation. The petitioner is presently
aged 35 years. The original physical measurement and
Physical Efficiency Test in the present case were conducted
during the year 2019. The original physical measurement was
taken on 23.12.2019, which was recorded as 156 cm. On re-
measurement taken on 09.01.2020 at the KPSC Head Office,
Thiruvananthapuram, her height was recorded as 156.5 cm. In
respect of another notification, the height of the petitioner
was measured by the PSC as 158 cm in 2013. It is the
contention of the learned Standing Counsel for PSC that
height of individuals may vary by the difference in age,
however, the PSC could not produce any material to
substantiate the said contention. It is the PSC itself that took
physical measurements of the petitioner in 2013, 2019 and
2020, on which different measurements were obtained.
Hence, it has to be presumed that the measurements taken
by the PSC are not accurate. When height is a mandatory
condition even after qualifying five of the nine events in the
Physical Efficiency Test, the height measured during relevant
..7..
times should be accurate. The female candidates have to
qualify five events out of the nine events specified in the
notification, which, admittedly, were qualified by the
petitioner. The events that female candidates must qualify as
per Annex.A1 notification are as under;
Sl. Events One Star Standards
No.
1 100 Meters Run 17 Seconds
2 High Jump 106 cm
3 Long Jump 305 cm
4 Putting the Shot (4000 grams) 400 cm
5 200 Metre Run 36 Seconds
6 Throwing the throw ball 1400 cm
7 Shuttle Race (4 x 25 cm) 26 seconds
8 Pull Ups or chinning 8 times
9 Skipping (One minute) 80 times
8. The PSC has no explanation for the inconsistency in
the measurements taken by them. Though it is contended by
the PSC that they are using standardized equipment for
taking measurements, we cannot ignore the slight differences
in measurements. The height of the candidate being a
..8..
relevant criteria for qualifying the physical standards, the PSC
is required to take utmost care and due diligence while taking
measurements. A government job is a dream for all aspirants.
They shall be ensured that the procedure followed by PSC is
foolproof.
9. In this advanced stage of technology, the PSC shall
dwell into more standardized procedures in order to curb the
anxiety of the candidates appearing for the physical
measurement test and they must convince the candidates of
the procedure and method, by which the height is measured.
We have seen several instances where there is inconsistency
in the measurement and re-measurement taken by the PSC
through the Board. Inconsistency in height measurement for
qualifying a test can lead to unfair violations. It is crucial to
ensure that standardized procedures are followed to maintain
accuracy and fairness in assessments. This procedure should
involve high tech equipments and trained personnel so as to
avoid errors and discrepancies.
10. Similar issue was considered by us in Kerala Public
Service Commission v. Akhil E.K. & Others [2024 KHC 215],
wherein the PSC challenged the decision of the tribunal,
..9..
directing the PSC to cause re-measurement of height of the
candidates. This Court declined interference, holding that
there is inconsistency in the height measurement taken by the
PSC in respect of the candidates. Though the said judgment
was taken in appeal before the apex court, it has become final.
11. Hence, on a consideration of the entire facts and
circumstances of the case and also taking into account the
negligible difference from the height required for the post and
the inconsistency in the height measurement taken by the
PSC at relevant times in respect of the petitioner, we are of
the view that the PSC can be directed to conduct a re-
measurement of the height of the petitioner.
Accordingly, the original petition is disposed of, as
follows;
A. There shall be a direction to the PSC to conduct a re-
measurement of the height of the petitioner within a
period of one month from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this judgment. It is open to the PSC to
seek assistance from an Assistant Surgeon, if necessary.
B. On re-measurement as above, if it is found that the
petitioner is having the required height, she shall be
..10..
included in the ranked list at the appropriate position on
the basis of her merit, without any further delay.
SD/-
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
SD/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
JUDGE
bka/-
..11..
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 362/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 29.09.2021 IN
OA NO.438 OF 2021 ON THE FILE OF THE
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF ORIGINAL APPLICATION
ALONG WITH ANNEXURES.
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION ISSUED UNDER
CATEGORY NO.582/2017 OF THE KPSC.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES SHORT LIST
NO.02/2019/DOH DATED 06.02.2019 UNDER
CATEGORY NO.582/2017 PUBLISHED BY THE
KPSC.
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
RANKED LIST NO.210/ERIX/13/EW DATED
09.05.2013 UNDER CATEGORY NO.467/2010
PUBLISHED BY THE KPSC.
ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE
NO.319/2020 DATED 24.02.2020 ISSUED BY
DR. SHAMEER SALAM, ASSISTANT SURGEON,
COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE, ANCHAL,
KOLLAM.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT DATED
19.11.2020 FILED ON BEHALF OF
RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED
31.12.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT FOR THE POST OF RESERVE
CONDUCTOR IN KSRTC.
..12..
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF RANKED LIST DATED
17.03.2020 FOR THE POST OF BEAT FOREST
OFFICER IN THE FOREST AND WILDLIFE
DEPARTMENT.
