IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2009 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22761 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ SREEJA K.V., W/O.MUKUNDAN, MAVILA HOUSE, KARAMEL, VELLUR POST, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, KANNUR. ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.22761/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE WRITTEN TEST HELD ON 30.6.07. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED ALONG WITH THE PART A OF OMR SHEET, BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT. EXT.P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER OF THE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT SENT TO THE SECRETARY, PSC DT 30.6.07. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT FROM THE RANK LIST. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. EXT.P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DT 22.7.09 ISSUED BY THE INFORMATION OFFICER. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 22761 OF 2009 (M) ===================== Dated this the 17th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T PSC published a notification inviting applications for appointment to the post of Last Grade Servants in various departments in Kannur District. Petitioner applied in response to the notification and by Ext.P1, she was called for a written test which was held on 30/6/2007. She appeared for the written test and according to the petitioner, due to an inadvertent mistake, she did not hand over Part A of OMR sheet to the Assistant Superintendent before leaving the examination hall. Petitioner states that on the same day, under cover of Ext.P2 letter, she submitted Part A of the OMR sheet to the Assistant Superintendent, who forwarded the same to the PSC under cover of Ext.P3 letter. It is stated that despite this, in Ext.P4 ranked list, her name was not included. Thereupon she made enquiries and came to know that her candidature was invalidated by the PSC. It is stated that it is thereupon the writ petition is filed. 2. Petitioner contends that even though there has been an inadvertent lapse on her part, on the same day of the WPC 22761/09 :2 : examination itself, Part A of the OMR answer sheet was returned to the Assistant Superintendent who in turn forwarded the same to the PSC. It is stated that in such a situation, PSC should not have relied on the technicalities and rejected her candidature. 3. When the writ petition came up for admission, this Court passed order dated 28/10/2009 directing the respondents to value the answer paper of the petitioner with a further direction not to publish the results. PSC has filed IA No.15435/09 praying for vacating the interim order. It is stated in the affidavit that in the written test that was held on 30/6/2007, petitioner also had appeared. It is stated that in Sl.No.8 of the instructions to the candidates, on the reverse side of the admission ticket, special instruction No.7 and instruction No.3 of OMR sheet required the candidates to separate Part A and Part B of the answer sheet along with the perforation and hand over both parts to the invigilator before leaving the examination hall. It is stated that inspite of these repeated instructions thus given, the petitioner left the examination hall without handing over Part A of the answer script to the Assistant Superintendent. It is stated that this amounted to violation of the instructions of the PSC and the WPC 22761/09 :3 : inevitable consequence was invalidation of the candidature of the candidate concerned. PSC has also stated that a notification containing invalidated register numbers including that of the petitioner was published on 12/6/2008 along with the probability list and thereafter the ranked list for the post was published and brought into force w.e.f. 18/9/2008. 4. Thus the case of the PSC is that there has been violation of the instructions by the candidate. It cannot be disputed that both the PSC and the candidate are bound by the conditions specified in the notification. The condition that a candidate should hand over both Part A and B of the answer sheet to the invigilator before leaving the examination hall was a mandatory condition specified by the PSC. Admittedly, there has been violation of this provision. For this violation, the inevitable consequence is rejection of the candidature. This precisely is what the PSC has done. Therefore, this Court will not be justified in finding fault with the PSC. 5. That apart, I also notice that the writ petition is highly belated. As already seen, the PSC has notified the invalidated register numbers and published the same on 12/6/2008. Ranked WPC 22761/09 :4 : list was brought into force w.e.f. 18/9/2008. Despite all that, the writ petition was filed only on 10/8/2009. For this reason as well, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition . Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp