K. M. Joseph, J. The petitioner was a candidate who applied for the post of Women Police Constable in Idukki District pursuant to Annexure A1. She cleared the O.M.R. test and was included in Annexure A3 short list. The physical efficiency test was scheduled to be held on 23/5/2013. As the petitioner was in the advanced stage of pregnancy and was advised bed rest, she submitted a representation along with Annexure A5 medical certificate to postpone the physical efficiency test. The said representation was given on 17/5/2013. There was no response. She gave birth to a child on 23/5/2013. Feeling aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents, the original application was filed before the State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) for a direction to conduct a separate physical efficiency test for her. The Tribunal dismissed the original application. It was found by the Tribunal, on the basis of the submissions made by the Public Service Commission, that the rank list for the said post had been published on 31/3/2014 and that in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in O.P. (KAT) No.590/2014, the applicant cannot be given another chance. It was also found that the applicant can claim a second chance for physical efficiency test, only if the selection process was not over. The Tribunal found that, in view of the publication of the rank list, the petitioner cannot claim another chance for physical efficiency test.
2. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner filed this original petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel for the Public Service Commission.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Tribunal was not justified in arriving at the conclusion that the list was finalised. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner had filed a representation seeking separate physical efficiency test for her well before finalisation of the rank list. The rank list, it is pointed out, was published only on 31/3/2014, but prior to the same the petitioner had filed a representation. Counsel would then point out that in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Somukuttan Nair v. State of Kerala ( ILR 1997 (3) Ker 419), when such a representation is filed, it is incumbent upon the Commission to take a decision on the same. Counsel would also submit that the fact, that before the rank list was published there was a representation and no action was taken on the same, is sufficient to overturn the order of the Tribunal and to grant relief to the petitioner.
5. The learned standing counsel for the Public Service Commission submitted that actually a general opportunity was given to all similarly situated persons. To our query as to the date on which the Commission afforded such an opportunity, today, when the matter was taken up, the standing counsel submitted that the Commission received the representation made by the petitioner on 21/5/2013 and there were similar requests from others also. The Division Bench of this Court also directed a consideration of the matter. Consequently, an opportunity was given to all similarly situated persons on 20/11/2013. The grant of such opportunity was attended with sufficient publicity. It was published in the web site and also in the leading newspapers.
6. Confronting the above submissions of the standing counsel, the learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that what the Division Bench of this court declared is that when representation is received, the same must be considered with reference to the facts and reply must be given, if rank list is not finalised. In this case the rank list was not finalised. The complaint of the petitioner, who was in the advanced stage of pregnancy, was not individually considered. It is also submitted that since no individual reply was given, the petitioner is still aggrieved. The learned counsel for the petitioner would draw our attention to Rule 40 of the PSC Rules and Procedures which enables the PSC to relax the requirements of the rules.
7. We are of the view that there is no merit in the case of the petitioner. The Public Service Commission discharges the duty of carrying out recruitments on behalf of the State and other public organisations. As per the decision of the Division Bench, if there is an individual complaint and if the list is not finalized, what the Division Bench held is that further opportunity must be given. In this case, what we notice is that just like the petitioner there were similarly situated persons who obviously could not appear for the physical efficiency test on 23/5//2013. It is not in dispute that further opportunity was, in fact, granted on 20/11/2013 for all. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was not aware of it. We are of the view that the argument of the learned standing counsel for the Commission, that the request was received from various parts of the State and they have published the reply in the web site as also in the leading news papers, thereby complying with the requirements of intimating the petitioner, merits acceptance.
8. In such circumstances, we would think that we need not interfere with the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE dpk. /True copy/ PS to Judge.