IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 34085 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAJESH PADMAN V.V., S/O.PADMANABHAN, AGED 37 YEARS, PUTHENPURAYIL, NANMINDA (PO), NANMINDA VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN SRI.JAYANANDAN MADAYI PUTHIYAVEETTIL SRI.E.M.UNNIKRISHNAN (MANJERI) SRI.NIAS MOOPAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM P.O. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. BRILLIANCE COLLEGE, S.S.KOVIL ROAD, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, LSGD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.ANTONY MUKKATH ADV.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC FOR PSC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.34085 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 15th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a candidate who appeared for an examination conducted by the Public Service Commission on 4.6.2010 for selection to the post of Assistant Engineer/Assistant Town Planning Officer. The petitioner is now challenging the validity of the examination itself on the ground that the questions were prepared by copying more than 26 questions from a rank file published by the 3rd respondent. According to the petitioner, by doing so, the Public Service Commission has rendered illegal help to the candidates who had occasion to go through the rank file prepared by the 3rd respondent. Such action has destroyed the competitive nature of the examination and undermined the credibility of the Public Service Commission, is his contention. According to the petitioner, copying of questions from the rank file would vitiate the conduct of the examination itself. The petitioner filed a representation against the test, which was directed to be disposed of by Ext.P14 judgment of this Court, pursuant to which, Ext.P15 order has been passed by the Public Service Commission, rejecting the contentions of the petitioner. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P15 seeking the following reliefs; “1. Declare that the examination conducted by Kerala Public Service Commission on 4.6.2010 by making use of Ext.P7 question paper is w.p.c.34085/10 2 illegal. ii) Issue a writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondents 1 and 2 from selecting candidates from the rank list to be prepared on the basis of the examination held on 4.6.2010 making use of Ext.P7 question paper. iii) Quash the decision which culminated in issuing Ext.P15 communication of the Kerala Public Service Commission rejecting the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 23.7.2010. iv) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Kerala Public Service Commission to conduct fresh examination for selecting the candidate for the post of Assistant Engineer/ Assistant Town Planning Officer.” 2. The learned standing counsel appering for the PSC would submit that insofar as there is no material indicating any malafide involvement of the PSC or even the question paper setter, this Court may not interfere with the test. In support of his contention, he relies on the decision of this Court in Sajan v. State of Kerala [2008 (2) KLT 133], which, according to the counsel, has already been upheld in writ appeal also. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. Ext.P15 reads thus: “1). This has reference to your petition dated 23.07.2010 wherein you alleged that twenty five questions in the question paper for the Objective Type Test (OMR valuation) for selection to the above post had been copied from the 'Super Rank File' published by one 'Brilliance College, Thiruvananthapuram'. The Commission has made an enquiry into the complaint you have raised. 2) The Commission after having examined your petition in detail with reference to the relevant documents such as the question paper (Code No.155/2010-A alpha code) and the alleged rank file has found the following facts. 3) The question paper for the Test consisted of 100 multiple choice questions from the various subjects in the Civil Engineering branch. Only twenty five questions are found common between the question paper and the rank file. Nevertheless, not all the common questions or its options are exactly similar. The common questions are w.p.c.34085/10 3 spread over the rank files for five subjects viz. (a) Concrete Structures, Steel Structures (b) Engineering Materials (c) Soil Mechanics (d) Water Supply Engineering etc. Arrangement of these questions in the respective rank files does not show any particular order or form but is at random. The rank files in which the questions were found alone carry more than 2700 questions in total. The numeral representation of the questions in each rank file are given below: 8 questions in a rank file of 1608 questions. 1 question in a rank file of 155 questions. 7 questions in a rank file of 436 questions. 9 questions in a rank file of 535 questions 4) On examining the various facts the Commission has arrived at the following conclusions: 5) The rank file referred to above being a study material under the broad head Civil Engineering covers almost all subjects of the Engineering branch and it cannot be considered as one brought out for the PSC test under reference. Since the rank file has thousands of questions from various subjects it would be a challenging task for an aspiring candidate to memorise whole or a part of the rank file to put himself in an advantageous position. The allegation that there was clandestine influence over the question setter is only surmise without substantial evidence. It is only an apprehension that any candidate who had the opportunity to go through the said rank file had an advantage over the rest. It remains a single fact that the study material is not a publication with restricted circulation. 6) Therefore, I am directed to convey the decision of the Commission that your complaint is not tenable and it shall not deter the finalisation of selection progressing to the next stage on the basis of the Objective Type Test held on 04.06.2010.” 5. I am fully satisfied with the reasons given by the PSC in rejecting the contentions of the petitioner. As rightly pointed out by the learned standing counsel for the PSC, unless there is some malafide intention by the PSC in the preparation of the question paper for the examination, this Court would not be justified in interfering with the examination, which has been conducted after months of efforts by various personnel spending public money. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner tries to distinguish the decision in Sajan's w.p.c.34085/10 4 case (supra), I am of opinion that ratio of that decision would apply to the facts in this case also. This Court had in that decision specifically held that unless there are clear and clinching materials indicating malafide involvement in the action of the PSC, interference by the court is not justified. The petitioner has not been able to produce any material even remotely suggesting any mala fide involvement of anybody in the setting of the question paper or the conduct of the examination in this case. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge