IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1932 WA.No. 1885 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.27495/2010 Dated 22/10/2010 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS ------------------------- 1. K.P.SUBAIR, S/O.K.K.PAREETH, RESIDING AT KARUVALLY VEEDU, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. SADIQ K.A., S/O.ABUBACKER K.K., KADAPPALLY MOOLAYIL VEEDU, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., SOUTH KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. HUSSAIN K.K., S/O.KUNJIMUHAMMED, RESIDING AT KALLEPPURAM VEEDU, CHANGAPUZHA NAGAR P.O., KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.B.BIPIN SMT.REVATHY P.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682022. 2. THE PRO-VICE CHANCELLOR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682022. 3. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682022. BY SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. Basheer & P.Q. Barkath Ali, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WA. No. 1885 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of November, 2010 Judgment Basheer, J: Appellants who participated in the written test held by the Cochin University of Science and Technology on August 14, 2010 for selection to the post of Sweeper-Cum- Cleaner pursuant to Ext.P1 notification, have filed the writ petition alleging that the question paper of the said written test had leaked even before the test had commenced. Appellants pressed into service Ext.P4 which is stated to be a portion of the question paper, and contended that the entire process of selection had been vitiated because of the above malpractice. Therefore they prayed before the learned single Judge that the written test be declared as null and void. The above contention was repelled by the learned single Judge and the writ petition was dismissed. Hence this appeal. 2. It may at once be noticed that appellants primarily banked on Ext.P4, to which we have already referred to, in support of their contention that the question paper had leaked even before the commencement of the test. The other material on which the appellants placed reliance was on the “flash news” that was reportedly beamed by several channels on electronic media at the time WA.1885/2010. : 2 : when the test was being held indicating that the question paper for the test had already leaked out. Appellants also placed reliance on certain newspaper clippings which, of course, appeared on the next day after the examination was held. 3. As regards Ext.P4 it may be noticed that it is admittedly an excerpt from a text book. The candidates were asked to read the passage and answer question Nos. 21 to 30 in the question booklet. A perusal of the question- answer booklet which was produced by the University before us would reveal that the candidates were supposed to answer 100 questions. Even assuming that Ext.P4, which is a truncated portion of the question paper, had leaked out, no significance or importance can be attached to the said piece of paper if we may term it as such. As rightly noticed by the learned single Judge, the print, font etc. of Ext.P4 did not have any similarity or resemblance to the question paper which was produced before the learned single Judge. 4. We have also perused the question paper booklet which is made available for our perusal. If in fact the question paper had leaked as alleged by the appellants, it would have been available with somebody. Anyhow appellants have not produced the leaked question paper WA.1885/2010. : 3 : before us. The only material that they have produced is an excerpt from a text book which incidentally happens to be a passage quoted in the question paper booklet, from which the candidates were supposed to answer 10 questions. Nothing more nothing less. 5. Having carefully perused the entire materials available on record, we do not find any substance in the allegations made by the appellant. We do not deem it necessary to refer to the other facile allegations and accusations made by the appellants in the writ petition which, in our view, do not even warrant any reference, leave alone any discussion or consideration. The writ petition is totally devoid any merit and it is liable to be dismissed with cost. We do so. Appellant shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as cost to the University within one month from to day. A.K. Basheer Judge. P.Q. Barkath Ali Judge. an.