IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 8TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 25477 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ASHOK.V., S/O. VISWANATHAN, SREEMANGALAM, NEAR NADAKKAL TEMPLE, KUPPAKAYAM.P.O., MUNDAKKAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM. SC SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).25477/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 30th day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT I heard this writ petition and issued a direction to the respondents to supply a copy of the OMR answer script of the petitioner within a time frame. Later a mention was made by the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC indicating that similar request had not been favourably considered by this Court on earlier occasions and this had to be brought to the notice of the Court. Therefore, I again heard the learned counsel on both sides. 2. Petitioner participated in the examination conducted by the PSC as part of the selection for the post of L.D.Clerk in various departments in Kottayam district. The probability list was published on 15.11.2008 and rank list was finalized with effect from 1.1.2009. According to the petitioner, he compared the answers given by him to the answer key published in this regard and found that he must get at least 72 marks. He applied for a rechecking of the answer script and by Ext.P3 communication dated 20.5.2009, he was W.P.(C).25477/09 2 intimated that on rechecking there is no warrant in changing the original valuation. He then approached the respondents for revaluing the paper and also to provide him a copy of the OMR answer script. Writ petition was filed at a point of time when these representations were pending. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that supply of OMR answer script on application is now a part of the procedure that has been adopted by the PSC and if that be so, there is no reason why the petitioner's request should not be accepted. 4. Learned counsel for the PSC submits that the Commission has taken a decision that request for supply of a copy of the OMR answer script should be entertained in relation to lists published from 1.6.2009. He placed before me a relevant Circular issued in this behalf by the Commission. 5. There is no statutory provision which compels the W.P.(C).25477/09 3 Commission to supply a copy of the OMR answer scripts and this fact was taken note of by this Court on several occasions and apparently a similar request made in W.P.(C).20353/2009 was considered and rejected. Present permissive policy that is followed by the PSC is made applicable in respect of the rank list published on 1.6.2009 and thereafter. They have not been made applicable in respect of the list published earlier. The question is whether there is any permissive policy requiring the PSC to supply a copy of the OMR answer scripts. Since the Circular issued by the PSC in this regard is made applicable only in respect of the rank list published on 1.6.2009 and thereafter, I am not in a position to issue any direction to the PSC to necessarily make it applicable the rank list published earlier, as has happened in the present case. I find no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs