IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2010 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23650 of 2010(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SMITHA CHATHANARAMBATH, J-15, SANGAM COMPLEX, ST.MARTIN ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-25. BY ADV. SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. M.H. HANIL KUMAR R2 BY ADV. MR. ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) 23650 OF 2010 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS : EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED 23.06.2010 INVALIDATING THE ANSWER SCRIPT OF REGISTER NO. 100012 EXT. P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE HALL TICKET ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT. P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE HORT LIST FOR THE POST OF LECTURER IN LAW PUBLISHED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT ON 23.06.2010 EXT. P4 : TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 08.07.2010 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT. P5 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 14.07.2010 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT EXT. P6 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 23.03.2010 IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 126/2010 /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P (C) No. 23650 OF 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 02nd day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers : “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to his case and to issue: i. a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext. P1 notification issued by the second respondent. ii. a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext. P5 order passed by the second respondent. iii. a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to value the answer script of the petitioner for the written test held on 13.11.2009 for the post of Lecturer in Law under the 1st respondent and to include her in the main list of Ext. P3 short list at appropriate place. iv. a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directing commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the interview to be held for the post of Lecturer in Law pursuant to publication of Ext. P3 short list. v. any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and allow this petition with all costs”. W.P. (C) No. 23650 of 2010 2 2. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court it was admitted on 05.08.2010, passing the following interim order. “Admit. Issue notice. In Ex. P3 it is stated thus :- All the candidates who have appeared for OMR test are included provisionally in the main list of the short list. It is thus obvious all those candidates who appeared for the OMR test have been included provisionally in the main list of the short list. Therefore, there will bean interim order directing the second respondent to permit th petitioner to participate provisionally in the interview to be held for the post of Lecturer in the Law pursuant to publication of Ext. P3.” Pursuant to issuance of notice, the second respondent/PSC entered appearance and filed a detailed counter affidavit, pointing out the sequence of events and the relevant facts and figures. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reason for excluding the petitioner from being considered for appointment to the post in question was for not bubbling the register number in the answer paper. Though the valuation of the answer paper is admittedly being pursued through OMR machine, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, there was absolutely no problem for identifying the answer paper, since the total number of candidates was very much limited in view of the nature of the post and further that hardly less than 100 persons turned up for the interview. The learned counsel also submits that all other candidates appeared in the written test, have been given an entry in Ext. P3 W.P. (C) No. 23650 of 2010 3 provisional/short list and as such, the petitioner is not liable to be non- suited referring to the alleged defect, which is rather technical in nature. 4. The learned standing counsel appearing for the PSC submits that, the question is not with reference to the actual number of the persons who participated in the written test, but with regard to the course that is being pursued by the PSC. There is no dispute that instructions were clearly given with regard to the manner in which the answer sheets were to be submitted. So also, there is no dispute that the valuation was being effected through OMR machine and by virtue of the technical aspects involved, unless and until the register number was bubbled as prescribed, the machine would not be in a position to read the register number and in turn, it cannot be valued. No question of any manual identification of answer sheet is intended or contemplated under any circumstances, which otherwise will go against the Rules, submits the learned standing counsel. 5. During the course of hearing, the learned standing counsel appearing for the second respondent submits that the reliance sought to be placed on Ext. P6 interim order passed by the Division Bench, calling upon the PSC to have the answer paper valued and to produce the result in a sealed cover is no more of any significance, for the fact that the matter had attained finality, when the concerned Writ Appeals i.e. W. A. Nos. 126 of 2010 and 263 of 2010 were finally heard by the Division Bench and they W.P. (C) No. 23650 of 2010 4 were dismissed declining interference, thus upholding the stand taken by the PSC with regard to the course pursued. Since the law has been declared by the Division Bench, it is no more open to this Court to extend any relief to the petitioner. The Writ Petition is devoid of any merit. None of the grounds raised in support of the claim could be held as tenable. Interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd