IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2011 / 23RD POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1239 of 2011(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHEELA JACOB,MURINGASSERIL, KANAMOOTTIL KUMBANAD.P.O,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689547. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.S.RAMU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM,PATTOM.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695004,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. CHAIRMAN,KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,THULASI HILLS,PATTOM PALACE.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004. 3. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS,KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,THULASI HILLS,PATTOM PALACE.PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004. 4. ADDITIONAL SECRETARY(EXAMINATIONS), KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,THULASI HILLS, PATTOM PALACE.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004. 5. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THULASI HILLS,PATTOM PALACE.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695004,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ADV.K.S.ANIL, SC ADV.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC FOR PSC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.1239 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 13th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a candidate who appeared for the test for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer in the Kerala State Electricity Board, conducted by the Public Service Commission. Her candidature has been invalidated on the ground that she wrongly bubbled her register number in the OMR answer sheet. The petitioner challenges the action of the PSC in invalidating her candidature on account of wrong bubbling of the OMR sheet. Although the petitioner is aware of the fact that this Court has in Susheela v. Kerala Public Service Commission [2010 (4) KLT 986] upheld the invalidation of candidature on account of wrong bubbling of the OMR sheet, the petitioner contends that petitioner's case is different from other cases for three reasons. The first is that this particular promotion test is being conducted only once in a while. The last test was in 2005 and it is only after a direction from this Court in a writ petition that the present test is being conducted. The next test correspondingly likely to be after many years and, therefore, if the candidature of the petitioner is not accepted for this test, the petitioner will have to wait for years to get promotion. The second contention is that immediately after bubbling the OMR sheet, the petitioner realised the mistake and w.p.c.1239/11 2 requested for a fresh OMR sheet, which was denied to her. According to the petitioner, there is no stipulation anywhere that a second OMR sheet would not be issued if the first one is wrongly filled up. This is further clear from the fact that in the hall ticket issued to the petitioner there was no specific stipulation that a second OMR sheet will not be supplied, whereas such a condition is now being added in hall tickets being issued by the PSC. Lastly, the petitioner would contend that the invigilators of the examination themselves had permitted the petitioner to write the test assuring the petitioner that notwithstanding the wrong bubbling of the register number in the OMR sheet, the PSC is likely to consider the petitioner's candidature. 2. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC also. 3. Admittedly the issue involved is squarely covered by the decision in Susheela's case (supra). It is a Division Bench decision, which is binding on me. I am not satisfied that the reasons pointed out by the petitioner are sufficient to direct the PSC to consider the petitioner's candidature despite the said decision. The fact that promotion test is being conducted once in a while should have been born in mind by the petitioner while filling up the OMR sheet. In fact the petitioner had been put to notice regarding the necessity to fill up the OMR sheet carefully. I am of opinion that the PSC had rightly w.p.c.1239/11 3 denied a second OMR sheet. Already the State is facing a situation where there are many complaints about bogus appointments. If the candidates are issued with second OMR sheet, that would also be a handle to those who indulge in fraudulent practices. The fact that the petitioner continued to write the examination on the advice of the invigilators does not give any right on the petitioner in the matter of invalidation of the candidature on account of the wrong bubbling of the OMR sheet. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge