Antony Dominic, J. 1. In this original petition, petitioner challenges the order passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, dismissing T.A.6849/12 filed by him. By the said order, the Tribunal rejected the challenged raised by the petitioner against the order passed by the Kerala Public Service Commission, confirming its decision that the petitioner was unsuitable for the post of Assistant Grade II/Auditor Grade II.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 17.6.2003, the PSC issued notification inviting applications for the post of Assistant Grade II/Auditor. Petitioner, a candidate suffering from 85% disability as certified in Ext.P1, also applied for the posts in question. He was called for preliminary examination and on being successful, also called for the final examination which was held on 2.4.2005. Being successful in the final examination, he was included in the short list and was interviewed on 23.12.2005.
However, when Ext.P7 ranked list was published, his name was not included. Thereupon, he submitted Ext.P8 representation. In pursuance of the directions of this Court contained in Ext.P12 judgment, the representation was considered and was later rejected by Ext.P13 order. It was challenging Ext.P13 order, the petitioner filed W.P(C).31265/08, which, on transfer to the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, was numbered as T.A.6849/12. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the PSC and it is in these circumstances, the original petition is filed.
3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the PSC.
4. The first contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that on appearance of the petitioner for interview before the Interview Board and on their seeing the certificate to the effect that he suffers 85% disability, he was sent out without any assessment of his suitability for the post. It was also contended by the learned counsel, placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Sreelekha v. Kerala Public Service Commission [2008 (1) KLT 966], that the petitioner could not have been discriminated in the selection process on the ground of his physical disability.
5. In so far as the first contention that the petitioner's suitability was not assessed is concerned, in the counter affidavit filed by the PSC, it was stated that on appearance of the petitioner before the Interview Board, he was asked several questions and that he was unable to comprehend the same or answer to such questions put to him. It was also stated that after the petitioner made his complaint, the Commission considered his case afresh and even the Commission also confirmed the decision of the Interview Board. This stand taken by the PSC in the counter affidavit therefore shows that there is no substance in the case of the petitioner that his suitability was refused to be considered by the PSC on the ground of his disability. That apart, on our direction, the PSC has produced the proceedings of the Interview Board. We have gone through the said proceedings which also shows that the Interview Board had assessed and found the petitioner unsuitable for the post. In view of these two facts, we do not find any substance in the case of the petitioner that his suitability for the post was not assessed by the Interview Board on account of his physical disability.
6. In so far as the second contention is concerned, first of all, we would like to say that the post against which the petitioner had responded in pursuance of the notification dated 17.6.2003 was not an identical post at that point of time. Therefore, the petitioner was a general candidate. When such a candidate appears before the PSC, the Commission is entitled to assess the suitability of that candidate for the posts notified. If in the process of such assessment, the Commission finds that the candidate is unsuitable, such decision taken by it cannot be said to be vitiated or discriminated as was made out by the learned counsel. Therefore, we do not think that this contention raised by the counsel has any substance. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel also does not support the case of the petitioner.
In the result, we do not think that the Tribunal can be faulted for the view it has taken in the impugned order. Original petition fails. It is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge.
kkb.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, Judge.