IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2009 / 2ND POUSHA 1931 WA.No. 2910 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.33761/2008 Dated 02/12/2009 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER ------------------------- SIDHIK.T.A, S/O. ALIKUTTY, AMMATTIYIL HOUSE, P.O. CHERAYA, KONGAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 635. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRERTARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBILC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. ABDUL RASHEED.K.S, KATTISSERY, GARDEN HAVELI, MANNAM.P.O, NORTH PARAVOOR. ERNAKULAM - 683 520. 5. YAHYAKHAN.U.P, ULLATTUPARA HOUSE, KOOTTIL.P.O, MALAPPURAM - 679 324. GP SMT.R.BINDU FOR R1 AND R2 ADV.SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS FOR R3 ADV.SRI.GEORGE ABRAHAM FOR R4 AND R5 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------------ WA No.2910 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dated 23rd December 2009 Judgment Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is the appellant. He was an applicant for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Arabic in the Department of Collegiate Education, when Public Service Commission invited applications for the same. After completing the selection process, the PSC published Ext.P1 rank list, in which, he was included as Rank No.39. Dissatisfied with this rank, the appellant applied for re-checking of his answer paper. The appellant submits, he was never informed of the results of the re-checking. But, later, he found that the persons ranked below him were advised for appointment. Upon enquiry, he was intimated on 31.10.2008 that his rank was changed from 39 to 43A. The same was done without notice or hearing him. No formal orders were also served on him, it is submitted. Feeling aggrieved by the action of the PSC in lowering his position in the rank list, the Writ Petition was filed, seeking a mandamus to retain his rank as 39 and also seeking consequential reliefs. WA No.2910/09 2 The PSC filed a counter affidavit in the Writ Petition, stating that upon re-checking, it was found that the appellant answered Question No.37 twice and he was awarded one mark each time. Since the PSC is empowered to correct any mistake in the rank list, it reduced his marks by one and as a result, he was eligible, only to be included as Rank No.43A. Accordingly, an erratum notification was issued, changing his rank from 39 to 43A. The appellant filed a reply affidavit, denying the contention of the PSC that the appellant answered Question No.37 twice. The answer papers were destroyed in the meantime as the time limit for keeping them was already over. Therefore, it could not be verified whether the appellant has actually answered Question No.37 twice. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, upheld the contention of the PSC that it has the power to correct mistakes. The contention of the appellant that the action was taken in violation of the principles of natural justice was also repelled, taking the view that remitting of the matter is going to be an empty formality and it will amount to issuing a futile writ. Feeling aggrieved by the said Judgment, this appeal is filed. WA No.2910/09 3 2. Shri.Kaleeswaram Raj, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant did not answer Question No.37 twice. So, the very foundation of the case of the PSC has been shaken and since the PSC failed to produce materials in support of its claim, the learned Single Judge should have allowed the Writ Petition. If such a power is conceded to the PSC, there is possibility of it being abused. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for allowing the appeal. We heard the learned counsel for the Public Service Commission also. 3. We notice that PSC is a constitutional body and it has no axe to grind against the appellant. So, upon re-checking the answer papers, if his rank is lowered, it can be safely assumed that the same was done based on the finding that the appellant has been awarded marks for one question twice. We find no reason to disbelieve the version of the PSC in this regard. The action was taken in the usual course and we can presume that the usual procedures were followed in this case also. Though the appellant is vehemently disputing the answering of a question twice, we find no reason to disbelieve the case of the PSC. Further, this being a matter, arising in the writ jurisdiction, even WA No.2910/09 4 assuming it is a disputed fact, the same will go against the appellant. Once we are inclined to think that the PSC has acted correctly, there is no point in remitting the matter for satisfying the requirement of natural justice. No amount of hearing is going to change the situation. The result is obvious from the start. Therefore, it will amount to issuing a futile writ. So, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has correctly declined to remit the matter for satisfying the requirement of natural justice. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta WA No.2910/09 5 WA No.2910/09 6