IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2011 / 14TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 37656 of 2010(F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.RANJITH KUMAR, SREE CHATHAYAM, NEAR POST OFFICE, P.O.EACHUR, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 591. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. 2. SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. R1 & R2 BY SRI. ALEXANDER THOMAS, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.37656/2010-F: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE RANKED LIST DTD. 28/04/2010 IN RESPECT OF THE POST OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANT. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. ER 1/988/09 DTD. 24/10/2009 ISSUED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 06/11/2010. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 25/11/2010 ISSUED BY THE R.2. TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.37656 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was an applicant for the post of Technical Assistant in the Legal Metrology Department pursuant to notification inviting applications published by the Kerala Public Service Commission. He appeared for the written test. But his answer sheet was invalidated on the ground that he has wrongly bubbled the OMR answer sheet. The petitioner is challenging the action of the P.S.C. in invalidating the answer script of the petitioner. The petitioner contends that, the petitioner is sure that the petitioner has bubbled the OMR answer sheet correctly. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “1) A writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ direction or order calling for the records leading to Ext.P5 and quash the same. 2) A writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ direction or order calling for the records leading to Ext.P3 and quash the same to the extent it invalidates the answer scripts of the petitioner with Register No.S121039 for the reason that the register number was wrongly bubbled in the answer script. 3) A writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ direction or order calling for the records leading to Ext.P2 and quash W.P.(C)No.37656 of 2010 -2- the words under Note 1 therein which reads “copies of OMR answer sheets invalidated due to any defect will not be issued” as the same is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and hits against the principle of transparency which is the primary requirement in every selection process. 4) A direction to the respondents to evaluate the answer scripts of the petitioner and to place him the appropriate eligible rank in the Ext.P2 ranked list in case he is found eligible after conducting interview and other formalities.” 5) A direction to the 2nd respondent to produce invalidated answer scripts with Register No.S121039 in respect of the petitioner before this honourable Court.” I was not inclined to admit the writ petition itself since in similar cases this court had already upheld the action of the P.S.C. in invalidating the answer sheets on account of wrong bubbling. But the counsel for the petitioner insisted that the petitioner has bubbled the OMR answer sheet correctly. After obtaining instructions from the petitioner he even volunteered to pay costs of `10,000/- if on production of the OMR answer sheet it is found that the petitioner has bubbled the OMR answer sheet incorrectly. Therefore I passed the following order on 20.12.2010. “Admit. Standing counsel takes notice for the respondents. 2. The petitioner's contention is that although the petitioner has bubbled the OMR valuation sheet correctly, the petitioner's candidature has been invalidated on the ground that the same has not been bubbled correctly. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: W.P.(C)No.37656 of 2010 -3- “1) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext. P5 and quash the same. 2) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext. P3 and quash the same to the extent it invalidates the answer scripts of the petitioner with Register No. S121039 for the reason that the register number was wrongly bubbled in the answer script. 3) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext. P2 and quash the words under Note 1 therein which reads “copies of OMR answer sheets invalidated due to any defect will not be issued” as the same is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and hits against the principle of transparency which is the primary requirement in every selection process. 4) A direction to the respondents to evaluate the answer scripts of the petitioner and to place him the appropriate eligible rank in the Ext. P2 ranked list in case he is found eligible after conducting interview and other formalities. 5) A direction to the 2nd respondent to produce invalidated answer scripts with Register No. S121039 in respect of the petitioner before this honourable Court.” 2. Earlier in two writ petitions, on the assertion of the petitioners therein that the OMR sheets have been bubbled correctly, I directed the standing counsel for the Public Service Commission to produce the copy of the OMR sheet. On production of the same in both cases, I found that the contention of the Public Service Commission was correct. In the above circumstances, I was of the prima facie opinion that there is no reason to disbelieve Ext. P5 communication issued by the Public Service Commission to the petitioner intimating him that the OMR sheet has been bubbled incorrectly. When this was pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner, after getting instructions from the petitioner, he submitted that, if, ultimately, the contention of the petitioner is found to be incorrect, the petitioner is ready to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as costs to the Public Service Commission. In view of this undertaking, I direct the standing counsel for the Public Service Commission to make available a copy of the OMR sheet for perusal of this Court Court. Post immediately after vacation. W.P.(C)No.37656 of 2010 -4- Pursuant to that order the counsel for the P.S.C. has produced the original OMR answer sheet of the petitioner which shows beyond any shadow of doubt that the petitioner had bubbled the OMR answer sheet incorrectly and later on erased the wrong bubbling. In fact the original shows that the eraser itself has totally disfigured the bubble itself. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the P.S.C. that on account of the same the computer cannot read the OMR sheet correctly. The counsel for the petitioner was also permitted to peruse the original of the OMR answer sheet. He also could not dispute the fact that the bubbling was incorrect and it was later erased causing damage to the bubble in the answer sheet. That being so, there is no merit in any of the contentions of the petitioner and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. As already undertaken by him, the petitioner shall pay `10,000/- as costs to the Kerala Public Service Commission. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/