IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2009 / 2ND SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 5337 of 2009(J) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- YOONUS PANAMBRAN,S/O.MOOSA HAJI, AGED 33 YEARS, L.D CLERK,JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,KUTHUPARAMBA (VIA) IRITTY, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.K.V.PAVITHRAN, MR.JAYANANDAN MADAYI PUTHIYAVEETTIL. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHAIRMAN, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE, COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY MR.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P(C) No. 5337 of 2009-J ------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of July, 2009. J U D G M E N T Heard Sri.K.V.Pavithran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Alexander Thomas, learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala Public Service Commission. 2. The petitioner is presently working as Lower Division Clerk in the Kerala Judicial Ministerial Subordinate Service. He had registered to appear for the departmental tests in Account Test (Lower) Paper I, Account Test (Higher) Paper III and Criminal Judicial Test, Papers 1 and 2 in the examination held by the Kerala Public Service Commission in January 2008. In the admission ticket issued to him he was assigned admission ticket No.28076. The petitioner appeared only for Accounts Test (Lower) Paper I. In the answer script, instead of admission ticket No.28076 he entered the number as 280076. On noticing this disparity, the result of the petitioner was withheld. Ext.P2 show cause notice was thereupon issued calling upon the petitioner to show cause why his appearance in the departmental test should not be cancelled. The petitioner submitted Ext.P3 reply. Thereafter by Ext.P5 letter dated 12.12.2008 the Kerala Public Service Commission informed the petitioner W.P(C) No. 5337 of 2009-J : 2 : that his appearance in the departmental test has been invalidated. Ext.P5 is under challenge in this writ petition, wherein the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to value his answer script and declare the result. 3. The Kerala Public Service Commission has filed a counter affidavit. Relying on Para VII (A) (2) of the notification issued on 3.11.2007 inviting applications for the departmental tests it is contended that failure to write correctly and distinctly the admission ticket number in the space provided in the facing sheet of the answer script renders the answer script liable to be invalidated. The Commission also relies on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P(C) No.34380 of 2009 produced as Exhibit R1(a) to contend that the petitioner’s answer script was rightly invalidated. 4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. This Court has in Ext.R1(a) judgment held that the instructions contained in the notification inviting applications to appear for the departmental test are binding on the candidates as well as the Kerala Public Service Commission and that when the consequences are clearly spelt out in the instructions itself, any violation of the same will result in invalidation of the answer paper. It was held that the Commission is bound to observe the instructions W.P(C) No. 5337 of 2009-J : 3 : strictly in the light of the larger public interest and that as the consequences of the breach have been clearly spelled out and discretion is not given to condone the same, the instructions have to be strictly adhered to. In Ext.R1(a) judgment the learned Single Judge declined to direct the Commission to value the answer script of the petitioner therein who had entered his register number as 10720 instead of 107201. In the instant case, the admission ticket number of the petitioner was incorrectly entered by him as 280076 instead of 28076. The consequences of such wrong entry have been clearly spelt out in the notification inviting applications. The petitioner was bound to strictly comply with the instructions as held by this Court in Ext.R1(a) judgment. In such circumstances, the invalidation of answer script of the petitioner cannot be faulted. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE //True Copy// PA to Judge ab