IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2010 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23252 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BINI.O., AGED 33 YEARS,THIRUVATHIRA HOUSE, KANICHUKULANGARA P.O. CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P SRI.R.RAMESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM. 2. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OFFICE, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC FOR R2&3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.23252/2009-B ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner herein is seeking for a direction to revalue the answer sheet of the petitioner in the objective type test (OMR valuation), conducted by the third respondent on 07/06/2008. The petitioner applied for the post of Junior Public Health Nurse Grade-II in the Department of Health Services, Alappuzha District. According to the petitioner, she has successfully written the examination. She was optimistic for a better outcome also. But finding that she is not included in the shortlist, she filed an application for revaluation as per Ext.P4. Her answer script stood invalidated going by Ext.P3 shortlist published by the P.S.C.. 2. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Public Service Commission. The learned Standing Counsel for the Commission relying upon the averments in the counter affidavit submitted that, going by the 'instructions to the candidates', there is no provision for revaluation. As far as OMR tests are concerned, W.P.(C). No.23252/2009 -:2:- the valuation of answer sheets are done by Optical Mark Reader and if bubbles are not properly blackened, the system cannot read them correctly. It is pointed out that if there is any violation of the instructions, it can only result in invalidation of the answer paper. It is also stated that the application of the petitioner to revalue her answer paper was rejected. There was no process to recheck the invalidated answer sheets. 3. Evidently, the answer script of the petitioner was invalidated for the reason that she had wrongly bubbled the roll number in the answer sheets. The said issue is covered against the petitioner by a Division Bench decision of this Court in W.A.No.126/2010 and connected cases. As far as the claim for revaluation is concerned, it is well settled by the decision of the Apex Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and others [(1984) 4 SCC 27] and a recent decision of this Court in Amritha Reji v. Union of India [2010 (4) KLT 571] that the request for W.P.(C). No.23252/2009 -:3:- inspection of answer scripts and revaluation of answer scripts of examination conducted by the authorities like Public Service Commission, University, etc. are not entertainable unless there is an express provision or rule of such examination conducting bodies in that regard providing disclosures. In the light of the above binding precedents, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms \\TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE