IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2009 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 1136 of 2009(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAIZA.I.A, CRESCENT, NEAR L.P.S MADAVANA, NETOOR.P.O, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.V.VENUGOPAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, (EXAMINATIONS), KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 4. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC FOR R1-3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.1136 of 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd April, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a candidate seeking appointment to the post of Junior Inspector of Co-operative Societies under the Department of Co-operation. The petitioner is aggrieved by the marks awarded by the Kerala Public Service Commission in the written test. The main prayer in the Writ Petition is for a direction to conduct a revaluation of the answer papers. Various contentions have been raised against the first respondent. 2. In the counter affidavit filed on 13.2.2009 the Public Service Commission has averred that the test conducted was an object type (OMR valuation) and the short list was published on 29.2.2008. The candidates who had secured 83 marks and above were included in the main list and the mark lowered for the Muslim candidates to be included in the supplementary list was 60. It is also stated that the application for re-checking of answer script was received from the petitioner within time and no change of marks had been noticed after re-checking. 3. The Commission has taken the stand that in the light of the various decisions of the Apex Court and this Court, the petitioner cannot seek for a direction for re-valuation. WP(C).1136/09 2 4. An additional affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 on 30.3.2009. It is stated in paragraph 3 of the additional affidavit that the petitioner was supplied with the question booklet with alpha code 'D'. She had attended 84 questions. Out of which, 72 answers were correct and 11 were wrong. 16 questions were not attended by her. By deducting 1/3 for wrong answers she had secured 68.37 marks that is rounded as sixty eight and thus included in the supplementary list for Muslim. 5. The learned Standing Counsel for the P.S.C produced before me in a sealed cover, the valuation details of the answer sheet. On perusal of the same, it is seen that the statement made in the additional affidavit is perfectly justified. Marks have been correctly assigned to her. In the light of above, there is no further scope for any revaluation of the answer papers as requested for by the petitioner. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE vgs.