IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2010 / 27TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 26095 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- S.CHANDRA PRABHA, SANKARALAYAM HOUSE, MUTHUPILAKKADU WEST, PORUVAZHY, BHARANICAVU, KOLLAM DISTRICT- 690 520. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP.BY SECRETARY. 4. DIRECTOR, LBS CENTRE, BAKERY JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SC, LBS CENTRE FOR R4 GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.P.N.SANTHOSH ADV.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 26095 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 18th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner appeared for the State Eligibility Test conducted by the Government of Kerala, this year. The petitioner did not secure a pass in the test. The petitioner submits that it is only because of the award of negative marks that the petitioner failed. According to the petitioner, award of negative marks was unjust, insofar as even in the National Eligibility Test that system has been dispensed with. The petitioner submits that instead of 12 marks as moderation, if 1.75% grace marks were given, the petitioner would have passed. The petitioner earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No. 22782/2010, consequent to the orders in which, Ext.P5 order has been passed, whereby the Government has refused to interfere. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs; “a) call for the records connected with the case. b) issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ order to quash Ext.P5 order issued by the 1st respondent. c) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the respondents to grant 1.75% of grace mark instead of 12 marks as moderation to the petitioner. d) declare that Clause 3 of the Prospectus for SET Exam 2010 to pass the State Eligibility Test, a candidate shall score at least 35% of marks for Paper I and Paper II separately and at least 50% of the aggregate marks of Part I and Paper II are illegal and arbitrary.” w.p.c.26095/10 2 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned standing counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. 3. I am not satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for interference with the results of the test. Whether to award negative marks or not is purely within the discretion of the respondents. As such, this Court cannot interfere with a policy decision to award negative marks for wrong answers. There is no law which would render award of negative marks illegal. Award of negative marks would only increase the standard of the test. The same is the case with awarding of moderation and grace marks. That is also in the discretion of the respondents, which is to be decided as a policy. As such, this Court cannot direct the respondents to award grace marks of 1.75% instead of 12 marks moderation. Insofar as the petitioner does not allege any other defect in the test, I do not think that I can interfere with the conduct of the test in exercise of my discretionary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.26095/10 3