IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2010 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 8177 of 2010(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- LIZZIE ALBERT, D/O.ALBERT, T.C.25/1831, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. MR.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI MR.J.R.PREM NAVAZ RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVT.OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.ANTONY MUKKATH R2 BY ADV. MR.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, PSC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 8177 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a candidate for the post of Legal Assistant Grade -II in the Law Department of the Government of Kerala. However, the petitioner could not find a place in the short list prepared by the P.S.C., on the basis of the mark obtained by him in the written test. Petitioner claims to have performed well in the written test and she submits that she ought to have been included in the list by revaluing the answer script. In respect of the same question, a learned Judge of this court passed the following judgment relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.461/2008. Common questions arise in these writ petitions. They were therefore heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioners applied for appointment to the post of Assistant/Auditor in Government Secretariat/Kerala Public Service Commission/Local Fund Audit Department. The petitioners were not selected. In these writ petitions, the W.P.(C)No. 8177 of 2010 -2- petitioners contend that as more than 50% of the candidates selected and included in Ext.P3 short list published on 11.6.2009 are from Thiruvananthapuram District, it is evident that there was foul play and malpractices in the valuation. On this ground the petitioners pray for revaluation of the answer scripts by an independent agency. 3. The issue raised in these writ petitions is in my opinion covered against the petitioners by the decisions of the Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Srivastava V. Chairamn, Bihar Public Service Commission (2004) 6 SCC 714 and in Civil Appeal No.461 of 2008 (Kerala Public Service Commission & others V. Narayanan Kunchumbidukka & another). The Apex Court has in the aforesaid decisions held that in the absence of any provision for re-valuation of answer books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for revaluation of his answer scripts. The petitioners have not been able to point out any provision entitling them to seek re-valuation. Further none of the candidates included in the short list are on the party array even in a representative capacity. In that view of the matter, following the decisions of the Apex Court referred to above, I am persuaded to hold that the reliefs prayed for in these writ petitions cannot be granted. That decision squarely applies the facts of this case. I fully agree with the said decision. In the above circumstances following the said decision this writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/