IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 29601 of 2009(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- REEJA.R., AGED 32 YEARS, D/O. RUKHIYA UMMAL, VILAYIL VEEDU, VEILOOR, SASTHAVATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU SRI.B.K.RAJAGOPAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION RPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY PATTAM PALACE.P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTE BY ITS SECRETARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT GOVENMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 29601 OF 2009 (U) ===================== Dated this the 9th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner applied for the post of District Educational Officer in response to a notification published by the PSC. By Ext.P4, she has been informed that her candidature has been invalidated for the reason that as against her Register number 386, she wrote 368 in the answer paper. It was therefore that her candidature was invalidated. The fact that the register number was wrongly written in the answer paper is not disputed. All that the petitioner contends is that even if a mistake has been committed, that did not disable the PSC from identifying her answer paper. 2. In my view that is no answer to the mistake committed by the petitioner. The instruction of the PSC required every candidate to mention the register number correctly and admittedly the register number has been wrongly mentioned. If that be so, there is violation of the instructions, and the consequence is invalidation of the candidature. That is what PSC has done and they cannot be faulted for the same. 3. In similar cases, this Court has upheld the action of the WPC 29601/09 :2 : PSC in invalidating candidature vide judgment in WP(C) Nos.34380/08 and 31378/09. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp