IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2009 / 27TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 27774 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUDHEESH, AGED 34 YEARS, NADICHIRAYIL HOUSE, AVALOOKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DISTRICT OFFICE, IDUKKI. MR.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC FOR PSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.27774 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 19th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner had appeared for the written test conducted by the respondents for appointment to the post of Last Grade Servants under various departments in Idukki District, vide category No.56/06. According to the petitioner, after the written test, an answer key was published by the Public Service Commission in its official website and bulletin, and when the results were published, he got the impression that the marks which were awarded to him was considerably low than what he actually deserved as per the answer key published. 2. In view of this, he made Ext.P4 representation to the 2nd respondent requesting for issuance of a copy of his OMR mark sheet for comparison. On that application, Ext.P6 order dated 14/08/2009 was passed rejecting the same for the reason that the petitioner did not remit the prescribed fee of Rs.250/-. On receipt of Ext.P6, the petitioner remitted the fee, and Ext.P7 is the chalan WP(C) No.27774/2009 -2- receipt. It is stated that along with the chalan, a fresh application was forwarded to the 2nd respondent, and Ext.P8 is its postal acknowledgment. Thereafter, orders have not been passed and that led the petitioner to file this writ petition. 3. Although, the learned standing counsel for the PSC now points out that the decision to issue OMR answer sheet to a candidate is applicable only in respect of examinations held from 2009 onwards, and that the application made by the petitioner was a belated one, none of these reasons are stated in Ext.P6. Since in Ext.P6, the only defect pointed out is the non-remittance of fee, and as the petitioner has cured the defect as evidenced from Exts.P7 & P8, it is directed that the 2nd respondent shall reconsider the application made by the petitioner on production of a copy of this judgment, and needful shall be done within four weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg