Ummer Koya V vs. Kerala Public Service Commission

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).11569-11571/2023 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 05-10-2020 in OPKAT No. 308/2020 05-10-2020 in OPKAT No. 310/2020 06-10-2020 in OPKAT No. 314/2020 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam] UMMER KOYA V. Petitioner(s) VFRSUS KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS. Respondent $(s)$ FOR ADMISSION and I.R. Date: 19-03-2025 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA For Petitioner(s) M/S. Lawver S Knit & Co, AOR Ms. Bina Madhavan, Adv. Mr. S. Udava Kumar Sagar, Adv. Mr. Nimesh Thomas, Adv. Ms. Usha Bhaskar, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. V. Chitambaresh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vipin Nair, AOR Mr. Aditya Narendranath, Adv. Mr. Mohd Aman Alam, Adv. Mrs. M.b.ramya, Adv. Mrs. Madhavi Yadav, Adv. Mrs. Deeksha Gupta, Adv. Mr. C. K. Sasi, AOR Ms. Meena K Poulose, Adv. Mr. Suvidutt M.S., AOR Ms. Deepika Singh, Adv. Ms. Disha Puri, Adv. Ms. Somlagna Biswas, Adv. Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rishesh Sikarwar, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

The central issue in the present cases before us is fixing of percentage marks with regard to interview in the examination which

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ITEM NO.19

COURT NO.16

(*REVISED FOR APPEARANCE) SECTION XI-A

has been conducted for the posts of Chief (Social Services) and Chief(Plan Coordination Division) in the State Planning Board, Kerala.

2. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., (1985) 4 SCC 417, which has been followed consistently, including in the case of P.Mohanan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. (2007) 9 SCC 497**, the percentage for interview should not exceed 12.5%, which according to her in the present case(s), was 40%. This, she contended, is totally impermissible and would give rise to an occasion where there could be colourable exercise of authority and position by the persons who are conducting the interview as well as the organization for which the employment is sought.**

3. Learned counsel for the respondent, at the outset, submits that without going into the finer details, as of now, the respondents have brought down the percentage of marks given for interview in terms of the prevailing standards across the country as also in light of the decisions of the Court from time to time.

4. Having regard to the aforesaid and also the fact that one of the successful candidate had also superannuated and the lis is of the year 2017, which has attained finality in the year 2022, we deem it appropriate to close the matters recording the stand taken on behalf of the respondent, as noted above.

5. In view of above, the present petitions are disposed of. 6. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(VARSHA MENDIRATTA) (ANJALI PANWAR)

COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)

2