Kerala High Court Sets Aside Tribunal’s Order for Fresh Driving Test: “Personal Difficulty of Candidate Cannot Undermine a Standardized Selection Process”

Court’s Decision:

The Kerala High Court set aside the Kerala Administrative Tribunal’s order directing the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) to conduct a fresh driving test for the petitioner, who was unsuccessful in the initial test. The court emphasized that there were no procedural flaws in the conduct of the test and that merely being tall does not entitle a candidate to a fresh examination.

Facts:

1. The Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) had issued a notification for the recruitment of Forest Drivers in the Forest Department.
2. The applicants, including the petitioner, were subjected to a series of tests: an OMR test, Physical Efficiency Test, and a Practical Driving Test (T-Test and Road Test).
3. After qualifying the preliminary stages, the applicants were called for a practical driving test.
4. The vehicle provided for the T-Test was a standard KSRTC bus. During the test, some of the applicants, including the petitioner, claimed that due to their height and the faulty condition of the vehicle’s steering mechanism, they could not complete the test successfully.
5. The petitioner contended that the steering was too tight and that his knees touched the steering wheel, making it difficult to maneuver the vehicle.
6. When complaints about the test vehicle’s condition were raised, the KPSC did not respond, leading to the filing of an application before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal seeking a fresh test.

Issues:

• Whether the petitioner was entitled to a fresh driving test based on his contention that the vehicle used for the T-Test was not suitable for his height and physique.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. The petitioner argued that his height (6.1 feet) prevented him from properly maneuvering the bus due to the tight steering and limited space for his knees.
2. He claimed that the unsuitable test vehicle and its mechanical flaws deprived him of a fair opportunity to showcase his driving skills.
3. The petitioner emphasized that he had qualified in all other stages of the selection process and should not be disqualified solely due to a vehicle’s deficiency.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. The KPSC contended that the practical test was conducted under fair and transparent conditions and that the vehicle was certified to be in good condition.
2. The respondent pointed out that out of 152 candidates who appeared for the practical test, a significant number passed the T-Test without raising any complaints.
3. It was argued that merely being tall does not constitute a valid ground for seeking a fresh test.
4. The KPSC emphasized that conducting a re-test for a single candidate would set a bad precedent and vitiate the integrity of the selection process.

Analysis of the Law:

1. The court analyzed the requirements laid down in the Kerala Public Service Commission (Rules of Procedure) and the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules.
2. Chapter VII of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which deals with construction, equipment, and maintenance of motor vehicles, was considered.
3. The court examined Rule 273 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which specifies the space to be reserved for the driver’s seat to ensure complete control of the vehicle.
4. The court noted that no upper limit for height was specified in the notification, and the petitioner’s height of 185 cm could not be considered a unique or unusual condition.

Precedent Analysis:

The court referred to principles of fairness and transparency in selection procedures but distinguished this case, stating that practical tests require physical control and proficiency, which cannot be adjudged on subjective parameters like height alone.

Court’s Reasoning:

1. The court observed that the KPSC conducted the test in a fair manner, adhering to established rules, and provided a fitness certificate for the vehicle used.
2. The petitioner did not raise any complaints during the test but only after he was declared unsuccessful.
3. The court found no procedural irregularities or defects in the test process, stating that a mere personal difficulty faced by a candidate cannot undermine a standardized selection process.
4. The tribunal’s order for a fresh test was deemed unsustainable as it would lead to an unmerited repetition of the selection process.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the Tribunal’s order directing a fresh driving test for the petitioner was untenable and set it aside. The petition filed by the KPSC was allowed, and the original application before the Tribunal was dismissed.

Implications:

The decision reaffirms that selection processes conducted by recruitment bodies like the KPSC should be respected unless clear procedural flaws or discriminatory practices are demonstrated. This judgment sets a precedent against the demand for individualized accommodations in standardized tests unless mandated by law or policy.

Also Read – Bombay High Court: “Consent Obtained Under False Promise of Marriage is Not Valid Consent; Allegations of Dowry Demands and False Promises Justify Prosecution” – Court Refuses to Quash FIR in Case Involving Misuse of Marriage Promise to Exploit the Victim