IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 30793 of 2011(Y) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- MANOJ KUMAR.K., NELLOOR HOUSE, MUTTAPPALLY P.O., MUTTAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM-686510. BY ADV. SRI.B.PREMOD RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. KERALA STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THULASI HILL, PATTAM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004. 2. STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REGIONAL OFFICE, KOZHIKODE- 673 001. 3. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY (RECRUITMENT)/ APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. BY BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 30793/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFICATION OF THE PETITIONER. P2: COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 28/9/2007. P3: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 14.7.2011 PUBLISHED BY THE RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 04/08/2011. P5: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 24/8/2011. P6: COPY OF THE APPLICATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. P7: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 28/9/2011 TURNING DOWN THE REQUEST MADE UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. P8: COPY OF THE REPLY SERVED ON THE PETITIONER DATED 25/10/2011. P9: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE EXAMINATION PROGRAM FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER, 2011 PUBLISHED BY THE RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.30793 of 2011-Y. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18th November, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner was an applicant for selection and appointment to the post of Sub Inspector of Police (Trainee) in Police Department (General Executive branch) – Category No.315/2007 (Open Market). He had submitted an application in category No.315/2007 pursuant to a Gazette notification of the Public Service Commission on 28.9.2007. The first respondent had conducted an objective type test on 12.10.2010, and the petitioner had appeared for the test. Thereafter, the first respondent had published a unified short list of the candidates who are eligible to be called for the descriptive test which is scheduled to be held on 19.11.2011. 2. According to the petitioner, he would have obtained more marks that the minimum marks that has WP(C).No.30793/2011-Y. 2 been prescribed by the first respondent for inclusion in the unified short list. However, his register number did not figure in the unified short list. Therefore, he submitted a representation to the Chairman of the first respondent on 4.8.2011. Thereupon, he has been issued with Ext.P5 reply informing him that on a perusal of his application, it was found that he had shown the category to which he had submitted his application as 318/2007, instead of 315/2007. Therefore, he has been informed that he is not entitled to be considered for selection in the category No.315/2007. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that he had shown the category in his application as No.315/2007. Therefore, he submitted Ext.P6 application under the Right to Information Act for the issue of a copy of the application submitted by him on 15.7.2007 and a copy of his answer sheet. As per Ext.P7, the Information Officer has informed the petitioner that it was not possible to issue him with copies of the documents requested for by him for the reason WP(C).No.30793/2011-Y. 3 that the selection process was not yet completed. The petitioner thereupon filed an appeal against Ext.P7. His appeal has been rejected as per Ext.P8. In Ext.P8, what is stated is that he should have retained a copy of his application before submitting the same, online. It is also stated in Ext.P8 that since the selection process was still in progress, copies of the documents required as requested for by him could not be granted until the selection process is complete. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the action of the first respondent and seeking permission to appear for the descriptive test that is scheduled to be held on 19.11.2011. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel Sri.P.C.Sasidharan who appears for the first respondent. 5. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is certain that he has written the category code as No.315/2007, correctly in his application. It is alleged WP(C).No.30793/2011-Y. 4 that since the first respondent has to process a large number of applications, it is possible that a mistake has been committed by the said authority. Therefore, in order to ascertain the correctness of the assertions made by the first respondent, the petitioner has requested for the issue of copies of his application to him. However, the said request has been turned down and his appeal against the said order has also been rejected. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner is left with no remedy other than to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Since there is no time left for obtaining a copy of the answer sheet, the counsel presses for issue of an interim order permitting the petitioner to take the descriptive test on 19.11.2011. 6. The counsel for the first respondent, on the other hand, opposes the contentions of the petitioner. It is pointed out that the writ petition is belated. It is also pointed out that as per the dictum laid down by a Division WP(C).No.30793/2011-Y. 5 Bench of this Court, the wrong entry of category code and other details would entail rejection of the application form of any candidate. Therefore, he prays that this writ petition is only to be dismissed. 7. I have considered the rival contentions anxiously. Though the counsel for the petitioner has vehemently attacked the impugned action of the first respondent in not issuing a copy of the answer sheet to him as rightly pointed out by the first respondent, it is not possible to issue the petitioner with a copy of the answer sheet or mark sheet, since the selection process is still continuing. The above is absolutely necessary for maintaining of the secrecy of the selection process and the purity thereof. The petitioner ought to have retained a copy of the application submitted by him, before he actually submitted his application to the first respondent. Having not done that, it is not open to him to contend that he has no remedy in the present situation. The first respondent has stated in Ext.P5 communication WP(C).No.30793/2011-Y. 6 that his application form has been examined and thereupon it has been found that instead of submitting his application under category No.315/2007, he has applied under category No.318/2007. Absolutely no evidence on material is placed before me to justify a conclusion that the above contention is wrong or false. Therefore, I accept the said statement. Though the counsel for the petitioner asserts that there is no mistake in the category code entered by him, in the face of Ext.P4, the said assertion has only to be rejected. There is absolutely no evidence to show that the petitioner has entered the category code correctly. There is no material to show that the petitioner has secured marks in excess of the marks obtained by the last candidate in the unified select list so as to entitle him to take the descriptive test scheduled to be held on 19.11.2011. Therefore, there is nothing to show that the petitioner has any right to appear for the descriptive test scheduled to be held on 19.11.2011. In the above circumstance, I am not satisfied that the WP(C).No.30793/2011-Y. 7 petitioner is entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in this writ petition. This writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, (Judge) Kvs/-