IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013 21ST SRAVANA, 1935 OP(KAT).No. 2669 of 2013 (Z) ----------------------------- OA 1244/2013 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPELLANT/ PETITIONER: ---------------------- MUJEEB P.H, AGED 3 YEARS S/O HASSANKUTTY, PUTHIYAKUNNEL HOUSE ADIMALY KARA & P.O, MANNAMKANDOM VILLAGE DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT 68556 BY ADV. SRI.PADAYATTEE YELDO RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THUSLASSI HILLS PATTOM PALACE P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 68500 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 69500 R1 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NOBLE MATHEW THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BP OP(KAT).No. 2669 of 2013 (Z) ----------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE O.A 1244/2013 OF THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL DATED 01 06-2013 EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA 1244/2013 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 14 06-2013 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL. ------------------------ //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JDUGE BP THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.
.................................................. O.P.(KAT) No. 2669 of 2013 ....................................................... Dated this the 12th day of August, 2013 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
When this matter came up on 2/8/2013, it was adjourned. The questions raised is as to whether the Kerala Administrative Tribunal is justified in taking the view that the petitioner is not entitled another round of physical efficiency test. By now, this Court had affirmed the action taken in this regard. The issue raised in this original petition stands covered against a petitioner by the judgment of this Court in O.P.(KAT) No.2066 of 2013. In the absence of malice, mala fides, arbitrariness or any other vitiating element being established, there is no ground to interfere, more so when the PSC did not, in the light of the video recordings, find any ground to accept the request of the petitioner. Under such circumstances, this original petition fails. In the result, this original petition dismissed in limine. sd/- (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) sd/- (BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) AMV/12/8/ /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE