IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2010 / 30TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 27495 of 2010(J) PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. K.P.SUBAIR,S/O.K.K.PAREETH RESIDING AT KARUVALLY VEEDU, COCHIN UNIVERSITY .P.O,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. SADIQ K.A., S/O.ABUBACKER K.K.,KADAPALLY MOOLAYIL VEEDU, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O.,SOUTH KALAMASSERY ERNAKUALM DISTRICT. 3. HUSSAIN K.K., S/O.KUNJUMUHAMMED, RESIDING AT KALLEPPURAM VEEDU CHANGAPUZHANAGAR P.O., KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.B.BIPIN SMT.REVATHY P.NAIR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O.,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. PIN-682022 2. THE PRO-VICE CHANCELLOR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O.,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN-682022 3. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O.,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN-682022 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.A4/174/2008 DATED 30.12.2008. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.RECT/1104/09 DATED 26.7.2010. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE GENERAL INSTRUCTION TO THE CANDIDATES. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LEAKED PART OF THE QUESTION PAPER. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT APPEARED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 15.8.2010. EXT.P5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT APPEARED IN THE MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DATED 15.8.2010. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS RELEASE OF THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY DATED 31.8.2010. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE INFORMATION DOWNLOADED FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE C.C.NO.754/2002. EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PRESS RELEASE DATED 3.4.2002. EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 4.4.2002 IN THE INDIAN EXPRESS DAILY. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE INSTRUCTIONS TO INVIGILATORS. EXT.R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE OBSERVER'S REPORT DATED 14.8.2010. EXT.R1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ON CONDUCT OF LAST GRADE RECRUITMENT TEST (LGRT) 2010 ON 14.8.2010 AT S.H.COLLEGE, THEVARA SUBMITTED TO THE CO-ORDINATOR, LGRT-2010, CUSAT. EXT.R1(d) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 21.8.2010 ON THE ALLEGED QUESTION PAPER LEAKAGE INCIDENT IN THE LAST GRADE RECRUITMENT TEST ON 14.8.2010. //TRUE COPY// AHZ/ K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C). NO. 27495 OF 2010 J ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT The Writ Petition is filed for a declaration that the written examination conducted by the Cochin University of Science and Technology on 14.8.2010 for selection to the post of Sweeper-cum- Cleaner is null and void and it is vitiated by illegality, irregularity and leakage of question paper. There is also a prayer to conduct an independent enquiry relating to the leakage of question paper before the conduct of the written test on 14.8.2010. The petitioners also pray to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to entrust the selection process of Sweeper-cum-Cleaner to an independent agency or to the Kerala Public Service Commission or in the alternative to direct the respondents to conduct the examination afresh. 2. The petitioners applied for selection to the post of Sweeper- cum-Cleaner pursuant to Ext.P1 notification dated 30.12.2008 issued by the Cochin University of Science and Technology inviting W.P.(C) NO.27495 OF 2010 :: 2 :: applications. The written test was scheduled to be held between 11 AM and 1 PM on 14.8.2010 at different centres in Ernakulam District. The petitioners received admit cards for the written test and they appeared for the written test held on 14.8.2010. 3. The allegation raised by the petitioners is that the question paper for the written test had leaked out and “the same was available after the evening on 13.8.2010”. It is also alleged that a portion of the question paper, which is marked as Ext.P4, was displayed by certain people near the examination centres at the time of commencement of the examination. It is stated that Ext.P4 is the copy of a passage incorporated in the question paper/answer booklet from which questions 21 to 30 were framed. According to the petitioners, the news regarding leakage of question paper was reported in various Malayalam newspapers dated 15.8.2010 (Ext.P5 series). It is also specifically stated by the petitioners in the Writ Petition that on 14.8.2010 several news channels showed flash news regarding the leakage of question paper. 4. In paragraph 7 of the Writ Petition, it is alleged as follows: W.P.(C) NO.27495 OF 2010 :: 3 :: “7. It is submitted that the part of the question paper was available outside of the exam centers from 11.45 AM onwards and the petitioners have perused the said part of the question paper after the examination and it was found that the same was a part of the question paper given to them. Total marks for the said part is 10 and hence there is every possibility that all the questions were leaked before the examination itself...” 5. According to the petitioners, the Selection Committee constituted by the Vice Chancellor for the selection of Sweeper-cum- Cleaner consists of the Pro-Vice Chancellor of the University as Chairman and Registrar of the University as Secretary. Two Syndicate Members, namely, Sri.C.M.Dinesh Mani, M.L.A. and Sri.N.K.Vasudevan, are also the members of the Selection Committee. As per Ext.P3 general instructions issued to the candidates, the candidates should appear before the examination centre at 10.30 AM. No candidate who appears after 11.30 AM would be allowed to appear for the examination. No candidate would be allowed to leave the examination hall before completion of the examination. The question paper and answer sheet, which W.P.(C) NO.27495 OF 2010 :: 4 :: constitute a booklet shall be returned to the officer concerned after writing the examination. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Ext.R1(a) “Instructions to Invigilators” provides that no candidate shall be admitted to the examination hall after the expiry of 20 minutes from the commencement of the examination and no candidate shall be allowed to leave the examination hall before the expiry of 60 minutes from the commencement of the examination. It is submitted that this is quite contrary to the conditions stipulated in Ext.P3. According to the counsel for the petitioners, this itself would indicate that the examination was not conducted in a proper manner. It is also alleged in the Writ Petition that consequent to the allegations in the matter of irregularities in the conduct of the examination, the Vice Chancellor called for a report from the Pro-Vice Chancellor, who was the Chairman of the Selection Committee. It was only an “eye-wash” since the Chairman of the Selection Committee himself was asked to submit a report. The Chairman of the Selection Committee submitted a report stating that there was no leakage of question paper at all. That report was made without conducting any independent enquiry. The report was placed before the Syndicate of the University and the Syndicate took W.P.(C) NO.27495 OF 2010 :: 5 :: a decision approving the decision of the Selection Committee to proceed with the selection process. 6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the allegations contained in the Writ Petition are denied. In paragraphs 3 to 5 of the counter affidavit, it is stated as follows: “3. The University by Ext.P1 notification invited applications for selection for the post of Sweeper cum Cleaner in its service. A written test for the candidates who had applied pursuant to Ext.P1 was conducted from 11 AM to 1.00 PM on 14.08.2010. The valuation of the answer scripts commenced on 02.09.2010. It was at that stage that the Writ Petition was filed. The valuation of the answer scripts is yet to be completed. 4. There was no irregularity or illegality or corruption or nepotism in the conduct of the written test held on 14.08.2010 as alleged in paragraph-1. Therefore, there is no ground for the petitioners to feel aggrieved. It is significant to note that the petitioners had not approached the University raising any complaint against the written test before approaching this Hon'ble Court. W.P.(C) NO.27495 OF 2010 :: 6 :: 5. Out of the 3168 applicants pursuant to Ext.P1 notification 2251 had appeared for the written test. Not even a single candidate who had appeared for the written test has so far submitted any complaint to the University regarding the written test.” 7. The allegations regarding irregularities and manipulations in the conduct of the written test, leakage of question paper, displaying a portion of the question paper outside the examination centre, etc. were denied in the counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the questions were not known to the public before the commencement of the written test. The setting, printing and supply of Question Booklet-cum-answer sheet were done in an extremely confidential manner. Only the required number of Booklets were printed and they were packed in six sealed boxes meant for the six centres. The question papers were kept in safe custody. The room in which the question papers were kept was opened only in the morning of the day fixed for the examination and the boxes containing the question papers were transported to the different examination centres. The seals on the boxes were intact when they were delivered at the examination centres. The boxes W.P.(C) NO.27495 OF 2010 :: 7 :: were opened only at 10.15 AM on 14.8.2010 in the control rooms of the examination centres, in the presence of Invigilators, Centre Observer, Centre Co-ordinator and Chief Superintendent. Each sealed packet kept in the boxes contained 20 Question Booklet-cum- answer sheets. Each Question Booklet-cum-answer sheet had another paper seal and the candidates had to break the seal for opening the Booklet. All the seals on the Question Booklet-cum- answer sheets were intact and no candidate raised any complaint of absence of seal or tampering with the seal on the booklets. 8. After about 75 minutes of the commencement of the examination, a group of persons owing allegiance to a political party made a futile attempt to disrupt the examination at a particular centre and later at another centre, alleging leakage of a portion of the Question Booklet. The observers deputed by the University at these centres submitted Exts.R1(b) and R1(c) reports to the University. In the reports, it was stated that the question paper boxes were found intact and there was no irregularity. After 12 noon, a group of people from outside came to the examination centres and demanded to stop the examination alleging leakage of question paper. The matter was W.P.(C) NO.27495 OF 2010 :: 8 :: reported to the control room in the University and also to the Registrar. The Registrar instructed not to stop the examination. On information given by the University, the police party came to the centre and provided adequate police protection for the conduct of the examination. The examination was completed smoothly and without interruption. 9. It is alleged in the counter affidavit that Ext.P4 is the photostat copy of page 32 of the Malayalam text book at the school level, namely, “Kuttikalude Koottukaran”. It is stated that Ext.P4 is not a copy of the Question Booklet. The type set and font of the passage in Ext.P4 and in the Question Booklet are entirely different. 10. In the counter affidavit it is also stated that as instructed by the Vice Chancellor and as per the decision of the Selection Committee, the Pro-Vice Chancellor furnished a consolidated report (Ext.R1(d)) to the Vice Chancellor, after verifying all the relevant documents. The Vice Chancellor placed that report before the Syndicate. The Syndicate met on 31.8.2010 and resolved to approve the report. W.P.(C) NO.27495 OF 2010 :: 9 :: 11. In paragraph 22 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that for the efficient conduct of the test, the Selection Committee deputed Dr.M.Bhasi, Professor, School of Management Studies as the Chief Co-ordinator. Dr.Philip Kurien, Controller of Examinations was entrusted with the confidential part of the examination. Referring to these averments, in the reply affidavit filed by the first petitioner, it is alleged that the main reason for leakage of question paper may be the appointment of Dr.M.Bhasi as the Chief Coordinator. It is alleged in the reply affidavit that while Dr.M.Bhasi was on deputation as Managing Director of the Kerala State Co-operative Consumer Federation Ltd. at Ernakulam, Ext.P8 warrant of arrest was issued against him by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam in a case involving offences under Sections 197 and 198 of the Indian Penal Code. It is stated that the allegation was that Dr.Bhasi had submitted a false certificate before the High Court in a case filed by one B.S.Shibu. That certificate was challenged by the Board of Directors stating that it was a false certificate. Ext.P9 press release and Ext.P10 newspaper report are relied on in support of the above allegation made in the reply affidavit. W.P.(C) NO.27495 OF 2010 :: 10 :: 12. In the reply affidavit filed by the first petitioner, it is also stated that the question paper had leaked out much before the commencement of the examination. From 11.30 AM onwards (date is not mentioned) several TV channels, including Manorama Vision, were showing flash news regarding the leakage of question paper. There was also agitation by general public in front of the various examination centres. It is pointed out in the reply affidavit that the respondents have no case that any of the candidates had come out of the examination hall before 1 PM. If so, it remains a mystery as to how a portion of the Question Booklet was available to the public even before the commencement of the examination. 13. Heard Sri.M.V.Thamban, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, and Sri.S.P.Aravindakshan Pillai, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 14. On 15.10.2010, the following interim order was passed: “After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and after having perused Ext.P4 and the W.P.(C) NO.27495 OF 2010 :: 11 :: statements in Ext.R1(d) report, it is necessary to direct the respondents to produce an unused question paper in a sealed cover for perusal by this Court. Post on 19.10.2010. Handover copy to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Interim stay is extended till 22.10.2010.” 15. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents produced an un-used Question Booklet in a sealed cover. The sealed cover was opened in Court. The un-used Question Booklet produced by the respondents is taken on record. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that the passage produced as Ext.P4 is available at pages 5, 6 and 7 of the Question Booklet. The type, font and pagination of Ext.P4 and the same as available in the Question Booklet are entirely different. It is clear that Ext.P4 is not a photostat copy of any portion of the Question Booklet. The un-used Question Booklet was also perused by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. He agreed that the passage in Ext.P4 is not a copy of the said passage as available in the Question Booklet. W.P.(C) NO.27495 OF 2010 :: 12 :: 16. The written examination was held on 14.8.2010. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the valuation commenced on 2.9.2010. The Writ Petition was filed on 3.9.2010. It is admitted that the petitioners did not submit any complaint to the University pointing out any irregularity in the conduct of the examination or leakage of the question paper. 17. The averment in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit that out of the 2251 candidates who appeared for the written test, not even a single candidate submitted any complaint to the University is not specifically denied in the reply affidavit. In the reply affidavit, this averment is vaguely denied and it is stated that the allegation of leakage of question paper had come to the notice of the authorities and the Vice Chancellor and that was why a report was called for. 18. The petitioners mainly relied on the newspaper reports to support the contention that there was leakage of question paper. It is to be noted that the newspaper reports produced by the petitioners are all newspaper reports dated 15.8.2010. It is stated by the petitioners that the news channels flashed a news of leakage of W.P.(C) NO.27495 OF 2010 :: 13 :: question paper. If any part of the question paper was available to any person on the previous day of examination, there is no reason why the news channels did not bring out the same on 14.8.2010 itself or at any time before the commencement of the examination on 15.8.2010. The speed at which the news channels report breaking news is known to all. If really any part of the question paper had leaked out before the conduct of the examination, certainly flash news would have appeared much before the time at which the examination commenced. There is no case for the petitioners that any such flash news appeared in the TV channels at any time before the commencement of the written test. The Writ Petition cannot be decided and conclusions cannot be arrived at based on newspaper reports. The above observations were made only to rule out any possibility of leakage of question paper as alleged by the petitioners. 19. The un-used Question Booklet produced before Court shows that a seal is available on the Question Booklet. Only after breaking the seal, the answer sheet could be read. No candidate had reported to any of the Invigilators or the members of the Selection Committee or to the Controller of Examinations or to the W.P.(C) NO.27495 OF 2010 :: 14 :: University that the seal available on the Question Booklet was found tampered. It is true that for leakage of question paper, it is not necessary that the seal on the Question Booklets issued to the candidates should be found tampered. But, in the absence of any positive proof regarding leakage of question paper, the non- tampering of the seals on the Question Booklets assumes importance. 20. It is true that there is difference in Ext.P3 and Ext.R1(f) with regard to the time within which a candidate could enter into the examination hall and at what point of time a candidate could be allowed to leave the examination hall. Such contradictions, by themselves, would not lead to the inference that the conduct of written test is vitiated by irregularities or illegalities. There is no allegation in the Writ Petition that due to the aforementioned contradiction, any candidate could not appear for the examination or any candidate left the examination hall with the question booklet. There is no allegation that any candidate who appeared for the written test was instrumental to the alleged leakage of question paper. Even if any candidate was allowed to leave the examination W.P.(C) NO.27495 OF 2010 :: 15 :: hall after 60 minutes of the commencement of the written test, any information supplied by him could not be made use of by any other candidate since no candidate could be allowed to enter into the examination hall after 30 minutes from the commencement of the written test. Of course, the University should have avoided such contradictions in Ext.P3 instructions to the candidates and Ext.R1(a) instructions to invigilators. 21. There is also no evidence or material to indicate that Dr.M.Bhasi was instrumental for any irregularity in the conduct of the written test. In fact, there is no allegation or averment in the Writ Petition to that effect. Only in the counter affidavit, it was mentioned that Dr.M.Bhasi was the Chief Co-ordinator. Of course, in the reply affidavit filed by the first petitioner, there are allegations regarding the previous conduct of Dr.Bhasi. Such allegations were made, probably after getting some information from the counter affidavit. Even in the reply affidavit, there is no specific allegation against Dr.M.Bhasi in the matter of the conduct of the written test. Any allegation of previous bad conduct against Dr.Bhasi, even if true, would not make the written test irregular or illegal. It cannot also be W.P.(C) NO.27495 OF 2010 :: 16 :: assumed, as the petitioners presume, that because Dr.Bhasi was the Chief Co-ordinator, there must have been leakage of question paper. 22. If the case put forward by the petitioners is true, they must be able to produce that part of the question paper which was allegedly “available after the evening on 13.8.2010”. No reasons are stated by the petitioners why they could not produce the same in Court. With whom the question paper was available on the previous day of the examination, is not mentioned. There is no specific allegation that anybody connected with the conduct of the written test had indulged in any activity resulting in the alleged leakage of question paper. 23. I am of the view that the petitioners have not made out sufficient grounds for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 24. The Cochin University of Science and Technology should have taken care not to invite allegations of the nature made in the Writ Petition as well as in the newspaper reports produced along W.P.(C) NO.27495 OF 2010 :: 17 :: with the Writ Petition. The University also should have taken care to see that no person against whom any serious allegations were made earlier is included in the Selection Committee or in the Co-ordination Committee. Allegation of leakage of question paper would create a sense of frustration in the mind of unemployed youth. The unemployed persons who seek employment should be able to believe that selection and appointment in Universities and other bodies are made in a transparent manner and that no malpractice occur in that process. Otherwise, even right thinking persons may try to adopt undesirable methods to get appointment. 25. I have held that there is no ground for interference, not because it was found that there was no malpractice in the conduct of the written test, but because it was not proved that there was such malpractice. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/