IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY FRIDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2011 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1933 WA.No. 1100 of 2010() --------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER DATED 22/12/2009 IN WPC.36348/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): ----------------------- AJITHA.K.R,AGED 37 YEARS, W/O.NARAYANAN,PEON,GOVERNMENT U.P.SCHOOL, VALLACHIRA,THRISSUR DISTRICT. AND RESIDING AT VALIYANGOTTU HOUSE,CHERPU, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY,KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT OFFICER,KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,THRISSUR. * ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED * ADDL.R4: DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THRISSUR. *ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 8/07/2010 IN WA.NO.1100/2010 R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.B.RAMANI THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts W.A.NO.1100/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEX-A: COPY OF THE GENERAL CONDITIONS ATTACHED ALONG WITH THE HALL TICKET. ANNEX-B: COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS SENT ALONG WITH THE HALL TICKET. ANNEX-C: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 15/12/2009 ISSUED BY THE P.S.C. ANNEX-D: COPY OF THE JUDGMENTDATED 28/1/09 IN WP(C)NO.34380/08. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS AND ANNEXURES: ANNEX-R1(A). COPY OF THE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE OMR ANSWER SCRIPT. ANNEX-R1(B). COPY OF THE ADMIT CARD ALONG WITH INSTRUCTIONS AND SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS TO CANDIDATES. ANNEX-R1(C). COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 34380/08. ANNEX-R1(D). COPY OF THE DIVISION BENCH JUDGMENT IN WA 2487/09. R4(A): COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.AI/42998/10/DPI DATED 12/6/2010. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts C.N.Ramachandran Nair & Bhabani Prasad Ray, JJ. ==================================== W.A.No.1100 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 17th day of June, 2011. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard counsel for the appellant and standing counsel appearing for the PSC. Appellant with 1st class degree in Mathematics with B.Ed. is working as a Peon in a Government U.P. School at Vallachira in Thrissur district. In the selection for appointment of High School teacher, appellant is entitled to be considered for appointment under direct recruitment and also by transfer. In the application called for by PSC, appellant applied for participating in the competitive examination. Appellant participated and got 38 marks which includes marks awarded for interview. She is now included in the supplementary list for direct recruitment but is not included in the rank list prepared for appointment by transfer for the reason that in the answer book she did not bubble the last digit of her roll number. The case of the PSC is that even though examination is WA1100/10 -:2:- common and only one valuation is required, technically the selection is treated as two and marks have to be awarded in the selection under the two categories. Since in the part of the answer book relating to the examination for appointment by transfer appellant did not bubble the last digit of her roll number, there is no valuation in that category and so much so, the appellant cannot be awarded mark, is the case of the PSC. However, the appellant's case is that there was only one examination and one valuation and the same is general and the result of valuation is disclosed to her. So much so, the failure to bubble the last digit of the roll number separately given for the same examination conducted for appointment by transfer should not lead to disqualification. Counsel for the PSC has relied on the decision of the learned single Judge of this Court wherein this Court has held that if bubbling is not done, PSC is justified in rejecting the answer book. Counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Commissioner of Police v. Sandeep Kumar (2011 (4) S.C.C. 644) wherein the Supreme Court has held that minor discrepancies or omission should lead to denial of justice. WA1100/10 -:3:- 2. After hearing both sides and after going through the records and photo copies of the answer books produced in court, we feel the appellant is entitled to relief though there is no reason to interfere with the legal position settled by the Division Bench and followed by the learned single Judge. This is because, in this case, the answer book is valid based on the correct filling of the application by the appellant by bubbling all the digits of the admission number in the examination held for selection by direct recruitment. Admittedly, the mark obtained is adopted for appointment by transfer also. Even if the appellant had bubbled the last digit of the roll number for the examination separately treated for appointment by transfer, the marks awarded in the common valuation would have been given to her for preparation of that list also. In other words, but for the technical omission, with 38 marks obtained in the examination, the appellant would have stood first among the three candidates selected in the category for appointment by transfer because the other two secured only 34 and 30 marks each respectively. We do not think the appellant, a lady and a Peon, with a first class degree in Mathematics WA1100/10 -:4:- with B.Ed. also with first class should be declined the benefit of selection process, wherein she came first among the candidates for appointment by transfer merely on account of the omission to bubble the last digit of the roll number, particularly when valuation of the answer book is done and marks are already awarded. We, therefore, allow the writ appeal by reversing the judgment of the learned single Judge with direction to the PSC to include the appellant in the rank list for appointment by transfer based on the examination held. However, the relief granted to the appellant in the facts of the case, which are exceptional in nature, need not be treated as a precedent by PSC. The inclusion of the appellant should be done without excluding the candidates already in the list. C.N.Ramachandran Nair, Judge. Bhabani Prasad Ray, Judge. sl.