IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2009 / 12TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 535 of 2008(L) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- PINTO SEBASTIAN, PADAYATTI HOUSE, KUMBIDY, ANNAMANADA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THRISSUR. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, KPSC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/08/2008, THE COURT ON 02/01/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.535/2008-L: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE QUESTION BOOKLET RELATES TO THE LAST GRADE SERVANT EXAMINATION IN THRISSUR DISTRICT HAVING ALPHA CODE `C'. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ANSWER KEY OF THE P.S.C. PUBLISHED IN THE MATHRUBHUMI THOZHIL VARTHA DTD. 01/12/2007. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE PUBLICATION, NAMELY, TOPPER'S CORNER (A PUBLICATION BY MATHRUBHUMI THOZHIL VARTHA). EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF LAST GRADE FACT FILE (A GUIDE PREPARED BY EXPERTS IN THE FIELD CONTAINS ABOUT VARIOUS INFORMATIONS, PUBLISHED BY BRILLIANTS PUBLICATION). RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. prv. P.N.Ravindran, J. ===================== W.P(C).No. 535 of 2008 ===================== Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT Heard Sri.O.D. Sivadas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Alexander Thomas, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner was an applicant for appointment to the post of last grade servant in various departments in Thrissur district. The notification inviting applications was published in the official gazette dated 17.7.2006. An objective type test was held on 19.5.2007. The petitioner appeared for the said examination. After the examination was held, the answer key was published on 15.6.2007. According to the petitioner, answers to question Nos.20 and 55 in the question paper booklet bearing Alpha Code 'C' were incorrectly given in the answer key published by the Kerala Public Service Commission, hereinafter referred to as the “Commission” for short. He submits that he had given the correct answers in his answer script. This Writ Petition is filed contending that due to the lethargic approach of the Commission in preparing the questions and settling the answers, candidates who have given the correct answers will loose marks, if valuation is done based on the answer key published by the Commission. The petitioner has in this Writ Petition prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding WP(C) 535/08 -: 2 :- the Commission to delete question Nos. 20 and 55 from the question paper booklet bearing Alpha Code 'C'. The petitioner has in the alternative prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Commission to have his answer script valued by an expert. 2. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit contending inter alia that after the answer key was published on 15.6.2007, complaints were received from many candidates within the time limit prescribed for submission of complaints and that on receipt of the said complaints they were got examined by an expert and based on the information furnished by the expert, answer to question No.20 was modified as 'C' instead of 'D' earlier published and answer to question No.55 was modified as 'D' instead of 'A' initially published, that the modified answer key was also published on 1.9.2007, that complaints were received regarding the modified answer key as well, that the issue was again got examined by experts and that based on the opinion given by the experts, the answers were again modified and answer to question No.20 was modified as 'D' and answer to question No.55 was modified as 'A'. The counter affidavit proceeds to state that the petitioner did not raise any complaint, that the modified answer key was again published on 15.11.2007 after the second round of scrutiny by experts, that the petitioner objected only thereafter on 4.12.2007, that if the petitioner's complaint is entertained, there will be no end to the matter, that the procedure adopted by the Commission is just and fair and that the petitioner who did not object to WP(C) 535/08 -: 3 :- the answer keys in time, is not entitled to call in question the method of preparation of the question paper or the correctness of the answers to the questions chosen in consultation with experts. The respondents also rely on the decision of this Court in Ajith K.Gokulam v. K.S.E.B. 2008 (3) K.L.T. 170 in support of the said contention. 3. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. It is not in dispute that the petitioner did not object within the time limit of 15 days from the date on which the answer key was first published on 15.6.2007 or within 15 days from 1.9.2007 when the modified answer key was published after the first modification or within 15 days from 15.11.2007, when the second modified answer key was published. The petitioner states that in respect of question Nos. 20 and 55, he had chosen answer 'B' and 'D' instead of 'B' and 'A' respectively in the modified answer key published by the Commission on 15.11.2007. The pleadings disclose that in the answer key first published by the Commission, answer to question No.20 had been given as 'D' and answer to question No.55 had been given as 'A'. Going by the original answer key published on 15.6.2007, the petitioner had answered question No.20 correctly. However, he did not object to the answer key to question No.55 which was given as 'A'. When the modified answer key was published on 1.9.2007 changing the answer to question No.20 as 'C' and to question No.55 as 'D', the petitioner did not object to the same. The second modified answer key was again WP(C) 535/08 -: 4 :- published on 15.11.2007. The petitioner did not object to it within the stipulated period of 15 days. In my opinion, the petitioner who did not object in time had no right to object to the answer key published on 15.11.2007 in consultation with experts after objections were called for on two occasions. As held by this Court in Ajith K.Gokulam v. K.S.E.B. - 2008(3) K.L.T. 170, the petitioner who did not object to the answer key which was first published on 15.6.2007 is not entitled to question the modified answer key published on 15.11.2007. The challenge made by the petitioner is in my opinion highly belated and without merit. The Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 20/12